Delhi High CourtShri Sunil Kumar Rajput vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Others on 27 August, 2009Author:S.N. AggarwalBench:S.N. Aggarwal*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C.) No. 4808/2008

%                  Date of Decision: 27th August, 2009


# SHRI SUNIL KUMAR RAJPUT
                                                   ..... PETITIONER
!                  Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate.

                                 VERSUS

$ GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
^                  Through: Mr. Kapil Dua for respondent No. 4.
                            Mr. Arvind Sharma for respondent No. 5.


CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1.    Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see
      the judgment? YES
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?YES
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the
      Digest?YES


S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)The workman in this writ petition seeks to challenge two orders i.e.(i) order dated 18.01.2007 passed by the Labour Court dismissing his

claim under Section 33 (C)(2) for earned wages for the period from

March, 2005 till August, 2005 and (ii) order dated 07.01.2008 passed by

the appropriate Government declining to refer the dispute raised by the

workman for adjudication to the Labour Court.2     Heard.3     The petitioner was appointed as a senior Scanner Operator at a

salary of Rs.13,000/- per month with respondent No. 3 company in 1989.

The petitioner was allegedly terminated by respondent No. 3 company

from its service w.e.f. 26.04.2006. Before termination of his services, theW.P.(C) No.4808/2008                                            Page 1 of 5management had not paid his salary from March, 2005 onwards. Since

the petitioner was not paid his salary from March, 2005 till July, 2007, he

filed an application underSection 33 (C)(2)of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 before the Labour Court and claimed an amount of Rs.65,000/- on

account of earned wages for the period from March, 2005 to July, 2005.

This application underSection 33 (C)(2)filed by the petitioner was

dismissed by the Labour Court vide impugned award dated 18.01.2007

stating that the petitioner was not entitled to the amount claimed by him

underSection 33 (C)(2)as there was no adjudication in the matter. The

petitioner before filing of his application underSection 33 (C)(2)had filed

a complaint before the Labour Officer stating that he was not paid salary

from March, 2005 onwards and in response to notice of that complaint,

Mr. Arun Sharma, one of the Directors of respondent No. 3 company

(respondent No. 4 herein) had appeared before the Labour Officer and

admitted the claim of the petitioner for salary up to 31.05.2005.

Respondent No. 4 who appeared before the Labour Officer and made a

statement admitting the claim of the petitioner for salary up to

31.05.2005 did not dispute the assertion of the petitioner that he was not

paid his salary from March, 2005 or even the amount of his salary being

Rs.13,000/- per month at that time. It seems that the Labour Court while

dismissing the claim of the petitioner underSection 33 (C)(2)vide

impugned award dated 18.01.2007 has ignored this vital admission of the

management of respondent No. 3 company. The Labour Court could not

have declined the admitted earned wages for the period from March,

2005 up to 31.05.2005 in view of admission about the same made by the

management of respondent No. 3 company before the Labour Officer. At

least the petitioner was entitled to salary of three months from March,

2005 to 31.05.2005 at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per month in view ofW.P.(C) No.4808/2008                                              Page 2 of 5admission of respondent No. 4 before the Labour Officer (at page 12 of

the paper book). The Labour Court also could not have dismissed the

application of the petitioner underSection 33 (C)(2)even for the period

after 31.05.2005 and in fact it should have decided whether the

petitioner was paid salary by the management of respondent No. 3

company after 31.05.2005 till 31.07.2005, the claim made by the

petitioner in his application underSection 33 (C)(2). This aspect was

required to be considered and decided by the Labour Court while

deciding the application of the petitioner underSection 33 (C)(2)and his

claim even for the period from 01.06.2005 to 31.07.2005 could not have

been rejected on the ground that the same requires adjudication as

mentioned in the impugned award dated 18.01.2007.4     For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that the

impugned award dated 18.01.2007 passed by the Labour Court on the

petitioner's application underSection 33 (C)(2)suffers from perversity

and cannot be sustained in law. The said award is, therefore, set aside.

The petitioner is held entitled to salary of Rs.39,000/- being salary for

three months from 01.03.2005 up to 31.05.2005 as this is admitted by

the management of respondent No. 3 before the Labour Officer on

31.05.2005. The management of respondent No. 3 is, therefore, directed

to pay an amount of Rs.39,000/- to the petitioner within four weeks from

today.   The   case    is   remanded   back   to   the   concerned   Labour

Court/successor court for deciding the claim of the petitioner underSection 33 (C)(2)for the salary for the period from 01.06.2005 till

31.07.2005 after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties as

per law. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Labour

Court/successor court for directions at 02:00 PM on 11.09.2009. The

concerned Labour Court is directed to decide the dispute between theW.P.(C) No.4808/2008                                            Page 3 of 5parties underSection 33 (C)(2)as expeditiously as possible preferably

within six months to be reckoned from 11.09.2009.5     Now coming to the second impugned order dated 07.01.2008

passed by the appropriate Government declining to refer the industrial

dispute raised by the petitioner relating to his alleged termination from

the service of respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 26.04.2006, it may be noted that

the Government has declined to refer the dispute for adjudication to the

Labour Court on the ground that the petitioner should make a claim

underSection 33 (C)(2)because he admits the closure of respondent No.

3 company. It is not indicated in the impugned order dated 07.01.2008

by which the Government has declined to refer the dispute raised by the

petitioner to the Labour Court for adjudication as to on which date

respondent No. 3 company was closed. The petitioner had raised a

dispute alleging his illegal termination from the service of respondent No.

3 w.e.f. 26.04.2006. The management of respondent No. 3 pleads closure

of its establishment without indicating the date when it was closed down.

Even if respondent No. 3 company was closed down as alleged by the

said company, still the question for adjudication arises as to what relief

the petitioner was entitled to on account of such closure. This question

could have been decided only by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.

The Government could not have declined reference of the dispute raised

by the petitioner on the ground that he should go and file a claim before

the Labour Court underSection 33 (C)(2). Unless an adjudication takes

place on the point that the petitioner's services were illegally terminated

or   his   services    were   dispensed   with   on   account   of   closure   of

establishment of respondent No. 3 company, no claim underSection 33

(C)(2)would lie. The impugned order dated 07.01.2008 passed by the

Government declining to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner forW.P.(C) No.4808/2008                                                 Page 4 of 5adjudication to the Industrial Adjudicator also suffers from perversity and

cannot be sustained in law. The said order is, therefore, set aside. The

appropriate Government is directed to reconsider the case of the

petitioner for referring the dispute raised by him for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal as per law. The parties are directed to appear before

the authorities competent to refer the dispute at 10:30 AM on

08.09.2009.6     This writ petition is allowed in terms referred hereinabove.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Labour Court for

information and necessary compliance.Order dasti.AUGUST 26, 2009                                       S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'W.P.(C) No.4808/2008                                            Page 5 of 5