MANAGEMENT OF MARYA HOSIERY Vs. DEEPA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner which is aimed against ex-parte award dated 27/10/1993 passed by the Labour Court-IV. By that award the L abour Court has held that the services of respondent no.3 Prithviraj were terminated by the petitioner illegally and unjustifiably. It has directed the re-instatement of respondent no.3 along with full backwages and continuity in service.

(2.) The case of the petitioner set out in the petition is that the respondent no.3 was employthout the permission of the competent authority. By order dated 1/9/1961 Managing Officer of the Regional or parted with possession of the whole premises allotted to him to the defendant No.3 M/s.Tej widers passed by the Settlement Commissioner as per which Shri R.N.Rai had sub-let, assigned ship of landlord and tenant.

(3.) Be as it may one cannot turn a blind eye to the various oraches Civil Court the plea is taken that he should have approached Rent Controller as there is a relatiosses on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and when the plaintiff approating such a situation, namely, when the plaintiff approached the Rent Controller his petition is dismied finality and has become resjudicata. The defendants cannot render the plaintiff remedyless by are just to cover up the irregularities committed by him and to pressurise the petitioner so that the petitioner may not pursue the matter against him with the police in respect of aforesaid theft. On his raising the dispute regarding his alleged termination, it was referred to the Labour Court with the following terms of reference: "Whether the termination of services of Sh.Prithviraj Raj Saini is legal/ justified, if not to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this behalf?