WP(C) No.12681/2006 Page 1 of 5 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.12681/2006 Date of Decision : 06.5.2009 SHRI SURINDER SINGH CHAWLA …… Petitioner Through : Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate. Versus STATE OF DELHI & ORS. …… Respondents Through : Nemo. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? NO V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral) CM No.6062/2009 This is an application seeking restoration of the writ petition to its original number. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the writ petition is restored to its original number. W.P.(C) No.12681/2006 1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the case. 2. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the ex parte award dated 17.2.2001 passed by the learned Labour Court -VI in ID no.7/1998 titled The Management of M/s WP(C) No.12681/2006 Page 2 of 5 Chawla Industries Vs. Its Workmen Sh. Rajesh Kumar and Sh.Dinesh Kumar. 3. By virtue of the aforesaid ex parte award, the termination of the services of two workmen namely Sh.Rajesh Kumar and Sh.Dinesh Kumar on 15.5.97 was held to be illegal and unjustified and accordingly, they were directed to be reinstated with full back wages. 4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid ex parte award has preferred the present writ petition and challenge the same on the ground that they were not served and accordingly they did not have any knowledge about the pendency of the matter. The petitioners were set ex parte vide order dated 22.11.1999. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents 3 and 4/workmen were actually employees of M/s Hindustan Industries (Hindustan Electric Works) while as they tried to serve the summons on 1476-77, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Behind Novelty Cinema, Delhi-06, which was the office of M/s Chawla Industries and therefore, as they have not been served thus they were prevented by ‘sufficient cause’ from appearing in the matter. 6. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the award shows that the workmen filed their affidavits by way of evidence in which they stated that M/s Hindustan Electric Works and M/s Chawla Industries are the family concern of the same person. Originally WP(C) No.12681/2006 Page 3 of 5 they were employees of M/s Hindustan Industries, now Hindustan Electric Works which is having its office at B-259 Phase 1, New Delhi and since the said firm was closed, the services of the respondents 3 and 4/workmen were transferred to M/s Chawla Industries, 1476-77, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Behind Navelty Cinema, Delhi-06. The services of the workmen were continued till the time they were terminated on 15.5.1997. 7. It is stated in the award that Sh.Rajesh Kumar’s salary was Rs.2200/- per month and Sh.Dinesh Kumar was working as a Helper and his salary was Rs.1300/- per month. Sh.Dinesh Kumar is alleged to have rendered services of eight years. 8. The petitioner in the present petition denied the service and it has not given any cogent explanation about the factum that M/s Chawla Industries is not the family concern of the same person. It is simply urged that the service has not been affected on the petitioner and therefore, the award deserves to be set aside. 9. Under Section 80 of the Evidence Act a presumption of correctness is attached to the judicial proceedings though strictly speaking the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable to the proceedings before the learned Labour Court in essence the principles would be applicable. There is no reason as to why the learned Labour Court ought not to have proceeded ex parte against the petitioner after the services having been effected. Photocopy of the summons has also been placed on record which shows that service was effected on M/s Chawla Industries. If despite the services, the petitioner has chosen not to appear, it WP(C) No.12681/2006 Page 4 of 5 has been done so at their own peril. Accordingly, I feel that there is no merit in the writ petition so far as the contention of the petitioner for setting aside of the ex parte award is concerned. 10. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as other portion of the award with regard to the reinstatement and payment of back wages is concerned, the facts of the case are not such where such a relief ought to have been given. 11. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the order sheet shows that the place of address where the respondent no.3 was living has been demolished and therefore, he could not be served. So far as the respondent no.4 is concerned, he has been served by way of publication. None for the respondent has been appearing. This clearly shows that respondents 3 and 4 were not interested in reinstatement. In such a contingency were the workmen is not vigilant enough in contesting and pursuing the matter, it clearly shows that the grant of the benefit of reinstatement or the payment of back wages would not be justified as it would keep the sword hanging on the management. Under these circumstances, I feel that it would be just, proper and fair to modify the award dated 17.2.2001 by directing the petitioner to pay one time lump sum compensation to the workmen. Since respondents 3 and 4 are not appearing, therefore, only a token compensation would meet the ends of justice. WP(C) No.12681/2006 Page 5 of 5 12. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- each with the learned Registrar General of this Court within four weeks from today as one time lump sum compensation to the respondents 3 and 4 which shall be released to the respondents 3 and 4 after they apply for the release of the same. 13. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of and the award dated 17.2.2001 passed by the learned Labour Court - VI in ID no.7/1998 stands modified. So far as the direction regarding deposit of one time lumsum compensation is concerned. List the matter before the learned Registrar for the purpose of compliance on 6th July, 2009. No order as to costs. V.K. SHALI, J. MAY 06, 2009 RN