Full Judgment Text
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 02.03.2020
+ W.P.(C) 2375/2020
SKYZED SECUTITASK & SERVICES PVT. LTD...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Triloki Pandit, Advocate.
versus
SANJEEV KUMAR & ANR ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral)
W.P.(C) 2375/2020 & CM APPL. 8293/2020
1. This petition impugns the order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the
learned Labour Court in New ID No. 1477-17, on the ground that it is
devoid of merits, both in fact and in law. It does not discuss the facts of the
case
2. However, the impugned order records that the petitioner neither filed
a reply nor participated in the proceedings. In other words, the claim of the
workman went uncontested. The petitioner had led evidence to prove that
he was working with one M/s Spirit Cars Pvt. Ltd. through the present
petitioner. The latter contends that the primary liability is that of M/s Spirit
Cars Pvt. Ltd., who was deleted from the array of parties.
3. Be that as it may, the petitioner is the one, which has been directed to
reinstate the workman as well as to pay the amount to the workman as
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2375-2020 Page 1 of 3
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:06.03.2020
17:36:07
sought to be recovered in the recovery notice dated 27.11.2019, which was
not responded to. The workman then led evidence in terms of his claim for
unpaid wages, legal facilities and reinstatement in service. His claim was
that he was working as a Field Officer since January 2015 and Rs. 15,000/-
per month was his last drawn salary. He never gave any occasion to the
management for complaint apropos his services. His service record
remained unblemished. However, when he sought facilities such as
Provident Fund, ESI contribution, copies of the Leave Book, Attendance
Card, Identity Card, overtime, etc., the management got annoyed and
terminated his services on 22.12.2015, without any prior notice to him.
4. In this regard, the impugned order has reasoned as under:
“……
12. As the management has not come forward to file any
Written Statement or to cross-examine the claimant or to lead
its own evidence, the evidence of the claimant remain
uncontroverted and unreubutted and as such accepted on its
face value.
13. Hence, the claimant is held entitled to the relief of
reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service
against management No.2.
…..”
5. Insofar as the petitioner itself had chosen not to participate in the
claim proceedings or to contest the claim before the learned Tribunal, no
worthwhile reason for the default is offered. The petitioner contends that the
relevant documents of employment were not given to it and that when the
same were sought, it was declined and therefore, the workman’s services
were terminated. The said contention is untenable and is accordingly
rejected.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2375-2020 Page 2 of 3
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:06.03.2020
17:36:07
6. In view of the above, the Court finds no reason for interference with
the aforesaid order. The petition is without merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
MARCH 02, 2020
AB
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2375-2020 Page 3 of 3
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:06.03.2020
17:36:07