* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 474/2009
% Reserved on: 28th January, 2010
Decided on: 10th March, 2010
OM PRAKASH
S/O SH. JAGDISH RAJ,
A-7-C, WEST VINOD NAGAR,
MANDAWALI, NEW DELHI. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate.
Versus
M/S LAMBA PLASTICS
THROUGH ITS PARTNERS;
SH. DAVENDER S. LAMBA &
SH. INDER MOHAN SINGH,
S/O SH. CHARANJEET SINGH LAMBA,
L-255, FIRST FLOOR, SECTOR-3,
D.S.I.D.C. BAWANA, DELHI-110039
ALSO RESIDENT OF:
B-15, PINK APARTMENT,
PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.K. Uppal and Mr. Anil
Kumar, Advocates.
Coram:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
LPA No.474/2009 Page 1 of 11
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. The Appellant was in service in the Respondent management as a
machine man for nearly six years when his services were terminated. In the
claim petition filed before the Labour Court it is contended that as statutory
benefit such as appointment letters, name on rolls, paid leave etc. were not
provided to the workmen, complaints were made to the Labour Department
and on general checking a report was also submitted by it. On the direction of
the Labour Department, the management gave them minimum wages, as the
same were not being given to them. On 12 th June, 2001 the management
refused employment orally to its workmen without payment of earned wages.
Thereafter, the union sought intervention of the Labour Inspector vide
complaint dated 13th June, 2001 for duty and earned wages etc. They also
served with a protest and demand notice dated 18th June, 2001. It is stated that
the three brothers Inder Mohan Singh, Davinder Singh and Balbir Singh were
running the management under different names and styles at the same address.
The management illegally stated that illegal strikes were being conducted by
the workmen. The management also threatened the workmen for their life, if
the case was not withdrawn from the Labour Department. In this regard
complaints were also made to the Labour Department and the police and thus
the workmen through its union sought reinstatement with full back wages.
LPA No.474/2009 Page 2 of 11
2. The proceedings before the Conciliation Officer failed and thus the
matter was sent for adjudication. The Labour Court vide its order dated 1st
September, 2008 held that the workmen voluntarily left the services of the
management after taking full and final payment of their dues. Aggrieved by
the said order the Appellant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10015/2009. The
said writ petition was dismissed on 13th July, 2009 upholding the order of the
Labour Court, with the findings that the Appellant had left the service of the
Respondent after receiving full and final payment and thus there was no
ground to interfere with the award. The orders dated 1st September, 2008 of
the Labour Court and 13th July, 2009 of the learned Single Judge are
impugned before us.
3. The contention of the Appellant before us was that the impugned orders
of the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge are erroneous, having
ignored all the material evidence on record. It is contended that the Labour
Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court wrongly held that the defence
of the Appellant, that he was made to sign on blank papers under pressure was
untenable, as no such plea was taken earlier. The Labour Court held that no
such plea was taken in detailed pleading, examination in chief or cross-
examination and none of the workmen took a stand that they had been forced
to sign the above said resignation and receipt or that they were made to sign
LPA No.474/2009 Page 3 of 11
on blank papers. The learned Single Judge held that the said plea was taken
by the workman for the first time when he appeared for his evidence and that
the Appellant in the course of his cross examination has admitted his
signatures on the full and final settlement and receipt of the payment with
which he was confronted by the management.
Learned counsel for the Appellant also relies upon a decision rendered
by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Tandur & Navandgi Stone
Quarries (P) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1964 (1) LLJ 737 wherein it has been
held that the fact that all aspects of the question of reference to the character
of the labour‟s employment were not set out by the Respondents in their
written statement, does not affect the credibility of the evidence led by them at
the trial.
Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the Appellant on the
decision rendered in the case of M/s Trambak Rubber Industries Ltd. v.
Nashik Workers Union, AIR 2003 SC 3329 wherein it has been held:
“6. The High Court, conscious of its limitations under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, went into the
question whether the conclusions reached by the Industrial
Court were legally sustainable. Incidentally, it went into the
question whether the Industrial court ignored the material
evidence on record. The one and only view that could be taken
on the basis of the evidence on record, according to the High
Court, is that the concerned persons whose engagement wasLPA No.474/2009 Page 4 of 11
terminated were not trainees but they were ‘Workmen’ and
therefore, their services could not have been terminated
without following the due procedure. The High Court held that
the action taken by the Management was an unfair labour
practice within the meaning of the Act and directed
reinstatement without back wages.
8. We are of the view that the High Court has not
transgressed the limitations inherent in the grant of the writ of
certiorari. The High Court had rightly perceived the patent
illegality in the impugned award warranting interference in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction……….On the facts and
evidence brought on record, the conclusion was inescapable
that the appellant-employer resorted to unfair labour practice.
There would have been travesty of justice if the High Court
declined to interfere with the findings arbitrarily and without
reasonable basis reached by the Industrial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand supporting the
findings in the impugned orders contends that there is no illegality in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the Labour Court and
hence there is no merit in the appeal.
5. Conscious of limitations in an intra Court appeal wherein interference
can be if the findings of the Court below are perverse, we have perused the
record and find that the inescapable conclusion on the basis of material on
record is that the Respondent employer was resorting to unfair labour practice.
6. Allegedly an incident took place on 30th May, 2001 wherein it is alleged
that the workmen of the Respondent were abused, beaten and signatures on
LPA No.474/2009 Page 5 of 11
blank papers were taken from them. In this regard a complaint was lodged to
the local police station on 30th May, 2001 itself, which was duly placed before
the Labour Court in evidence, while confronting the management witness
Inder Mohan Singh MW1 and same is marked as mark M2. To appreciate the
finding that the Appellant for the first time took the plea that the signatures
were taken on the blank papers in evidence alone, the entire sequence has to
be visualized as to when the Appellant had the first opportunity to use the
complaint dated 30th May, 2001. The Appellant in his claim alleged that his
services were illegally terminated in view of the complaints made to the
Labour Department, which complaints were duly exhibited by him. The
Respondents in their reply stated that the workmen left their job on their own
after taking all dues from the management company. No reference was made
to these receipts in the written statement. The Appellant in his evidence by
way of affidavit has categorically stated that he had not left the services nor
received any full and final dues from the management and even the wages for
the month of May, 2001 were given by the management before the Labour
Inspector. It is only in the cross-examination of the Appellant that these
receipts were put to him. As the said documents bore his signatures, he
admitted the signatures. However to substantiate his claim that his signatures
were taken forcibly on blank papers, the Appellant has put this complaint
LPA No.474/2009 Page 6 of 11
dated 30th May, 2001 alleging forcible signatures on blank papers, to the
management witness on the first available opportunity, that is, in the cross-
examination of the management witness. In our view the Labour Court and
the learned Single Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the plea of
forcible signatures on blank papers was taken belatedly in evidence only, by
ignoring this vital aspect of the evidence.
7. The learned Single Judge also noted that in cross-examination the
workman has admitted his signatures. In fact, it is the case of the workman
itself that they were made to sign on the blank papers and thus he admitted his
signatures, however, the same cannot be used to the disadvantage of the
Appellant workmen.
8. The finding of the Labour Court that it is nobody‟s case that the
workmen were made to sign on blank paper or printed proforma, is wholly
erroneous not only in view of the management witness having been
confronted with the complaint dated 30th June 2001 marked „M2‟ but also in
view of the relevant portion of the cross-examination of the management
witness which reads as:
“It is incorrect to suggest that all the documents which
have been filed on record were forcibly got signed from the
workers and the workers had made a complaint to the police in
this respect. I cannot say anything about the letter mark M2
addressed to the SHO PS Paschim Vihar.
LPA No.474/2009 Page 7 of 11
It is correct that once a labour inspector had visited the
premises of the management and had conducted the general
checking. It is incorrect to suggest that we were upset about
the said checking, therefore, we had terminated the services of
the workers on 12.6.01. It is correct that the workers were
paid salary for the month of May, 2001 in the presence of the
labour inspector. It is incorrect to suggest that besides the
payment of said salary there was nothing paid to any of the
workmen. It is incorrect to suggest that before the conciliation
officer in Karampura, the management had refused to take the
workmen on duly. Vol. we were not in a position to take the
workmen back on duty because they were constantly
extending threats to us and also for the reason that the
management had closed its business in June, 2001.”
9. Both the learned Single Judge and the Labour Court ignored the
relevant admission of the management witness which has come in his cross-
examination that the Labour Inspector had visited the premises of the
management and had conducted the general checking and the workers were
paid salary for one month for May, 2001 in the presence of the Labour
Inspector. Though the management witness in his cross-examination had
denied the suggestions that they had terminated the services of the workers on
12th June, 2001 and that before the Conciliation Officer the management had
refused to take the workmen on duty, however, it has been categorically stated
voluntarily by the management witness that they were not in a position to take
the workmen back on duty because they were constantly extending threats to
them and also for the reason that the management had closed its business in
LPA No.474/2009 Page 8 of 11
June, 2001. Thus, if the management was not in a position to take the
workmen on duty and had closed its business in June, 2001, the plea of a
willful resignation of the workmen with full and final settlement is untenable.
10. The management witness has been confronted with yet another
document on record, a letter dated 13th June, 2001 of the management, sent to
the Appellant and his co-workers with copy to Assistant Labour
Commissioner, wherein it is stated that the workmen have gone on illegal
strike on 13th June, 2001 without notice and they are being asked to return on
duty, failing which legal action would be taken. Though the management
witness has not admitted the signatures of his brother on the document, but he
clearly admits the same to be on the letter pad of the management.
11. To come to the conclusion that the Respondent has received full and
final payment from the management, the learned Single Judge has also held
that the finding of the Court below is corroborated by the books of accounts of
the management Ex.MW1/WX1 and Ex. MW1/WX2. As per the learned
counsel for the Appellant the said documents are only computerized sheets
allegedly of the accounts of the management Ex. MW1/WX1 and Ex.
MW1/WX2, which fact has not been rebutted by the learned counsel for the
Respondent. Though strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed
before the Labour Court, in which case these computerized sheets of the
LPA No.474/2009 Page 9 of 11
books of accounts had to be proved by resorting to Section 65A and B of the
Evidence Act, however, the least that is required as per the principles of
natural justice and fair play is that the same are certified to be the computer
generated true copies of the accounts maintained in the course of day to day
business.
12. In our view, the finding that the Appellant had left the service after
taking full and final payment is erroneous not only being contrary to the
evidence on record but arrived at by ignoring material evidence on record. It
is evident from record that the management was not complying with the
statutory requirements and admittedly there were reports of the Labour
Department against them in this regard thus indulging in unfair labour
practices. The services of the Appellant were terminated illegally. We
therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 13th July, 2009 passed by the
learned Single Judge and the award dated 5th September, 2007 passed by the
Labour Court.
13. We would also like to note that though the management witness has
stated that they have closed down the management in 2001, however the
Appellant has placed on record the evidence and fresh address of the
Respondent, from where it is running its business.
LPA No.474/2009 Page 10 of 11
14. The appeal is allowed with the directions to the Respondent to reinstate
the Appellant with back wages with effect from 1st September, 2008 the date
of Award of the Labour Court.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
(MADAN B. LOKUR)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MARCH 10, 2010
vn
LPA No.474/2009 Page 11 of 11