Bharat Litho vs Arjun Mehto and Another

S.N. Aggarwal, J.

C.M. No. 9402/2009 (exemption) in W.P.(C.) No. 10817/2009

Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C.) No. 10817/2009 and C.M. No. 9401/2009 (for stay)

This writ petition filed by the management (petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated 13.07.2007 passed by Ms. Nisha Saxena,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XXI, Delhi, awarding 50% back wages to the workman (respondent No. 1 herein) for the period from

16.02.1996 to 24.10.2002.

Heard.

The award challenged in the present writ petition was passed by the Labour Court on 13.07.2007. This writ petition has been filed after more

than 2 years. No cogent explanation has been given for the delay caused in filing of the present writ petition. Even if we assume that delay can be

condoned, still the petitioner has no case on merits.

The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Screen Painter by the petitioner w.e.f. 27.10.1987 and he was terminated by the petitioner w.e.f.

16.02.1996. The respondent No. 1 aggrieved by his termination had raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate

Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. In response to notice of the reference, the management took a plea that the respondent No. 1

had abandoned the service of the petitioner of his own and according to the petitioner, respondent No. 1 was not terminated. The issue before the

Labour Court was whether respondent No. 1 had abandoned the service or whether he was terminated by the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjay K. Shandilya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has referred to the contents of letter dated 16.02.1996 (Exhibit

WW1/6, Annexure P-5 at pages 17-18 of the Paper Book) to contend that the petitioner has not terminated the services of the respondent No. 1

as alleged by him and according to the learned Counsel, vide letter dated 16.02.1996, the respondent No. 1 was only asked to explain his

unauthorised absence in the past. The letter dated 16.02.1996 (Exhibit WW 1/6) was duly replied by the respondent No. 1 vide letter dated

19.02.1996 (Annexure P-6 at page 20 of the Paper Book). After receiving the reply of the respondent No. 1, the petitioner sent another

communication dated 20.02.1996 to the respondent No. 1 which is Annexure P-7 (at page 23 of the Paper Book) in which the petitioner took a

stand that it was justified in not retaining the respondent No. 1 in its service. It may be noted that the respondent No. 1 in his cross-examination

before the Labour Court has categorically stated that he was not allowed to join the duty by the petitioner after 16.02.1996. This clearly proves

that the services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated by the petitioner and for that reason, the impugned award by which he has been

awarded 50% back wages from the date of his termination till the date of order of reinstatement dated 24.10.2002 cannot be faulted with.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned award which may call for an interference by this

Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is

hereby dismissed in limine.