LAWS(DLH)-2009-8-213

MANIK EXPORTS Vs. RATAN LAL

Decided On August 07, 2009
MANIK EXPORTS Appellant
V/S
RATAN LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE management of M/s Manik Exports through its proprietor Mr. Surendra singh (the petitioner herein) has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing the ex-parte award dated 03. 08. 2002 in ID No. 674/2000 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator directing reinstatement of the workman (respondent No. 1 herein) with 50% back wages.

(2.) MR. K. K. Rohtagi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent No. 1 was never employed by the petitioner and according to him there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. He has further argued that the petitioner never ever had any connection with premises No. WZ-33, Gali No. 10, Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar, New delhi or Paschim Vihar Extension at which respondent No. 1 had allegedly worked while in the alleged employment of the petitioner. Mr. Rohtagi has taken me through various documents at pages 24-45 of the paper book to contend that till 1999 the petitioner was doing its business from premises bearing No. E-280, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi and the petitioner had shifted its business from E-280, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi to b-2/77, Paschim Vihar sometime in early 2000.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 in his complaint dated 12. 11. 1996 (Ex. WW-1/12 at page 53 of the paper book), in the demand notice dated 28. 11. 1999 and also in the statement of claims filed before the Labour Court on 31. 07. 2000 mentioned the address of the petitioner as WZ-33, Gali No. 10, Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar, New delhi. However, on the same day of filing of statement of claims before the labour Court i. e. on 31. 07. 2000, respondent No. 1 also filed an application to bring on record the changed name and address of the petitioner i. e. Surendra singh, Proprietor M/s Manik Exports, B-2/77, Paschim Vihar, Delhi which according to the petitioner is its correct address. The change in the name and address of the petitioner was allowed by the Labour Court and notice of reference was sent to the petitioner at its correct address. The record of the court below contains an A. D. card which purport to bear the signatures of someone having received the notice of reference on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Rohtagi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that he had shown the A. D. card available in the file of the court below to his client who has denied his signatures on the said A. D. card. According to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner never received any notice from the Labour Court and for that reason, the petitioner could not prove its defence against the reference to show that respondent No. 1 was never employed by the petitioner and that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties.