Airport Authority of India vs Ram Gopal and Others

A.K. Sikri, Acting Chief Justice

Against the award dated 16th May, 2007 of the Labour Court granting reinstatement with 25% back wages, the appellant Airport Authority of India (AAI) has filed W.P.(C) No. 8510/2007. In this writ petition, notice has been issued to the respondent workmen and in the meantime there is a stay of reinstatement. The respondent workmen, who are three in number, filed applications u/s 17B of the ID Act, 1947 for payment of wages during the pendency of the said writ petition. Vide impugned order dated 14th March, 2012 prayers made in the said applications by the respondent workmen have been allowed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to pay last drawn wages or the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority from time to time, whichever is higher, from the date of the impugned award till the disposal of the writ petition, provided the respondent workmen file an undertaking that they shall refund to the appellant any amount which may be found to have been received by them in excess of their entitlement u/s 17B of the Act, in the event of appellant succeeding finally in the writ petition. Challenging that order present Intra-Court appeal is preferred. The contention of the counsel for the appellant, which was raised before the learned Single Judge also, was that the respondent workmen were gainfully employed in industrial establishments and in the affidavits filed, two respondent workmen had given wrong addresses because of which the appellant could not make any investigation to find out as to whether they were working or not. In the case of another workman namely Shri Rajindra Kumar Sharma, the contention was that he was employed as a Security Guard at premises No. C-72, Sector-2, Noida. It is the submission that the learned Single Judge ignored this argument of the appellant. It is argued that had the respondent workmen given their correct residential addresses, the appellant could have found out as to whether they were also working.

When this appeal came up for hearing on 23rd July, 2012, direction was given to the respondent workmen to file their individual affidavits stating their present address as well as the addresses at which they were living at the time of filing of application u/s 17B of the ID Act. In respect of respondent workman Shri Rajindra Kumar Sharma, it was directed that he should also state in his affidavit as to whether he had been working as a Security Guard at C-72, Sector-2, Noida or any other place.

All the three respondent workmen have filed affidavits. In so far as Shri Rajinder Kumar Sharma is concerned, he has given his residential address where he has been residing since the year 2000. He has further stated that he joined the employment of M/s Balanced Clothing, owned by Mr. Rohit Bal at C-72, Sector -2, Noida in June, 2005 and worked there till November, 2011 when his services were retrenched and his last drawn wages were Rs. 7,600/- per month in M/s Balanced Clothing. He has categorically stated that he has been unemployed after November, 2011. This shows that the affidavit which was filed by Mr. Rajindra Kumar Sharma along with his application u/s 17B of the Act stating that he was not employed from the date of award was false. Mr. Rajindra Kumar Sharma made a wrong statement on Oath and as a result thereof he could even get the order of payment of wages u/s 17B of the Act in his favour as passed by the learned Single Judge. Since the application u/s 17B of the Act filed by him was supported by false affidavit, we dismiss his application u/s 17B of the Act and appeal to that extent is allowed. Further for making false submissions in the said affidavit, we are of the view that prima facie case of perjury u/s 340 of the Cr.PC (Section 195 & 196 Cr.PC) is also made out. Registrar General is directed to make reference to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate for initiating proceedings against him.

In so far as respondent No. 1 Shri Ram Gopal is concerned, in his affidavit he has now given the present address where he is residing. He has specifically mentioned that his old residential address is RZG-97, Gali No. 3, Palam Dabri Road, Vijay Enclave, New Delhi - 110 045 and owner of the said house is Mr. Devender Singh who is his brother. He resided in the said house from 1992 till December, 2010 and from January, 2011 he is residing at Gram Post Keelpur, Tehsil Khair, Block Tappao, Zila Aligarh, UP. He has further specifically stated on Oath that since the date of passing of the impugned award dated 16th May, 2007 he has not been able to procure any employment.

In these circumstances, the order passed u/s 17B of the Act by the learned Single Judge qua Shri Ram Gopal is sustained. However the said order shall remain in abeyance for a period of two months to enable the appellant to find out as to whether Shri Ram Gopal is presently employed or not. We are giving this time to the appellant as the present address of Shri Ram Gopal where he is residing since January, 2011 is provided only now. In case the appellant finds or has proof that Shri Ram Gopal is presently employed, the appellant may move an application before the learned Single Judge for variation of order u/s 17B of the Act; otherwise the said order shall become operative after a period of two months and the arrears of wages u/s 17B of the Act; shall be paid to Shri Ram Gopal from the date of award as ordered.

The respondent No. 3 workman Shri Ram Chander Paswan in his affidavit has stated that his residential address was House No. 48, Harijan Colony, Baghdola, near Primary School, New Delhi- 110 045 which premises belonged to his father-in-law, who was a tenant of the said house and the owner is one Shri Gyan Chand Yadav. It is further stated that he resided in the said house from 1990 till December, 2009 and from January, 2010 he had shifted to House No. 51, village Baghdola, Near Radhey Krishan Mandir, New Delhi - 110 077 and is residing in this house as a tenant. He has also stated that since the date of passing of the award he has been unemployed. The case of the respondent No. 3 workman Shri Ram Chander Paswan shall also be governed by the same order which is passed in respect of respondent No. 1 Shri Ram Gopal. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid manner.