Manik Exports vs Sh. Ratan Lal and Another

S.N. Aggarwal, J.—The management of M/s Manik Exports through its proprietor Mr. Surendra Singh (the petitioner herein) has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing the ex-parte award dated 03.08.2002 in ID No. 674/2000 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator directing reinstatement of the workman (respondent No. 1 herein) with 50% back wages.

Mr. K.K. Rohtagi learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent No. 1 was never employed by the petitioner and according to him there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. He has further argued that the petitioner never ever had any connection with premises No. WZ-33, Gali No. 10, Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi or 25, Paschim Vihar Extension at which respondent No. 1 had allegedly worked while in the alleged employment of the petitioner. Mr. Rohtagi has taken me through various documents at pages 24-45 of the paper book to contend that till 1999 the petitioner was doing its business from premises bearing No. E-280, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi and the petitioner had shifted its business from E-280, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi to B-2/77, Paschim Vihar sometime in early 2000.

Respondent No. 1 in his complaint dated 12.11.1996 (Ex. WW-1/12 at page 53 of the paper book), in the demand notice dated 28.11.1999 and also in the statement of claims filed before the Labour Court on 31.07.2000 mentioned the address of the petitioner as WZ-33, Gali No. 10, Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. However, on the same day of filing of statement of claims before the Labour Court i.e. on 31.07.2000, respondent No. 1 also filed an application to bring on record the changed name and address of the petitioner i.e. Surendra Singh, Proprietor M/s Manik Exports, B-2/77, Paschim Vihar, Delhi which according to the petitioner is its correct address. The change in the name and address of the petitioner was allowed by the Labour Court and notice of reference was sent to the petitioner at its correct address. The record of the court below contains an A.D. card which purport to bear the signatures of someone having received the notice of reference on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Rohtagi learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that he had shown the A.D. card available in the file of the court below to his client who has denied his signatures on the said A.D. card. According to learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner never received any notice from the Labour Court and for that reason, the petitioner could not prove its defence against the reference to show that respondent No. 1 was never employed by the petitioner and that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties.

I have given my anxious consideration to the rival arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties. I do not wish to make any comment on the documents filed by respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court to show himself to be an employee of the petitioner as it is likely to cause a prejudice to either of the parties. These documents relied upon by respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court are at pages 74-78 of the paper book. On giving my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice require an opportunity to be given to the petitioner to prove that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties but at the same time, the interest of workman being respondent No. 1 in the petition also need to be secured so that in the event the petitioner would fail to prove its defence to the reference, respondent No. 1 may get his legitimate dues in terms of fresh award promptly and without any hassle.

Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case and the submissions made by counsel for the parties, the impugned ex-parte order dated 03.08.2002 in ID No. 674/2000 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the concerned Labour Court/successor court for fresh adjudication of the reference in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties subject to the petitioner''s depositing the entire award amount with the court below within six weeks from today. The Labour Court is directed to keep the award amount to be deposited by the petitioner in a fixed deposit for a period of one year so that the deposit does not remain unproductive.

The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Labour Court/successor court for directions at 2:00 PM on 20.08.2009. The court below is directed to decide the reference afresh as expeditiously as possible preferably within one year from today.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Labour Court/successor court for information and necessary compliance. LCR be also sent back.

In view of the above, this writ petition as well as all pending misc. applications stand disposed of.

9 Order dasti.