PACKBILL ENTERPRISES Vs. DINESH KUMAR MISHRA @ PAPPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the award dated 01.07.2014 passed by the authority under Section 21 of the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby directions have been issued to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.52,000/- along with compensation of Rs.100/- which amount was towards the unpaid earned wages of claimant Dinesh Kumar Mishra @ Pappu. The contention of the petitioner is that it was an ex-parte award; that signatures of its manager Mr.Sandeep were manipulated on the summon dated 10.04.2013; that the petitioner was not aware of such an award and they came to know of it only in February, 2015 when he had received attachment warrants. It is further submitted that the respondent had worked as a driver with them only for 10-12 days and he had never worked for the petitioner with effect from 01.07.2012 to 10.11.2012 at the monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. It is further submitted that he was found taking drugs and in drunkard condition and was expelled from the job. The respondent along with workers of Karamsheel Mazdoor Sangarh Union (Regd.) came to the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and threatened with false court cases in case of refusal. He had also filed a claim petition before the Labour Court, Karkardooma, Delhi, seeking his reinstatement with full back wages and he had not disclosed in the said petition about this ex-parte award passed in his favour. It is further submitted that no one would believe that if a driver is not paid for such a long period, his salary, he would continue to work and the allegations itself show that he had filed false and frivolous claim with malafide intention. It is further submitted that exparte award has not been passed following all rules and regulations under the law and the same is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and unwarranted and is liable to be set aside.

(2.) I have heard arguments of Mr.Amarjit Singh Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the award is bad because the learned labour court had believed the oral testimony of the respondent and no document showing the relationship and no other document showing that he had worked with the petitioner, had been placed on record. It is submitted that believing bald statement of the respondent and giving its findings is contrary to the established provisions of law. Reliance has been placed on the findings in Titan Industries Limited vs. Kishan Lal, 2007 137 DLT 566 and Sukhram & Others vs. Guptaji Tent House and Another, 2013 204 DLT 462.