C K INDUSTRIES Vs. RAM BIHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE management of M/s C. K. Industries and M/s C. K. Circuit functioning from premises bearing No. B-45, Jhilmil Industrial Area, G. T. Road, Shahdara, delhi-95, in this writ petition, seeks to challenge an industrial award dated 10. 03. 2005 in I. D. No. 961/2001 directing reinstatement of the respondent workman with 50% back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition are that the respondent workman along with his co- worker sh. Rama Nand had raised an industrial dispute for termination of their services by the management of the petitioners. This dispute raised by them was referred by the appropriate Government in the Government of NCT of Delhi to the labour Court for adjudication vide notification No. F. 24 (909)/2001-Lab. /14481-85 dated 26. 06. 2001. The terms of W. P. (C) No. 9833-34/2009 Page 1 of 6 reference were as under: "whether the services of S/sh. Rama Nand and Ram Bihari have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

(3.) THE respondent along with his co-worker had filed a joint statement of claim before the Labour Court. In their joint statement of claim they have pleaded that both the managements, i. e. M/s C. K. Industries and M/s C. K. Circuit belong to the same family of father and son. The respondent along with his co-worker were made to work for both these establishments. The respondent was engaged by the petitioners as Screen Printer w. e. f. 01. 01. 1998 and he worked with the petitioners till 03. 12. 2000. The respondent's co-worker Rama Nand claimed to have been appointed as a Karigar in May 1998 and had worked with the petitioners till 23. 12. 2000. Both the workmen alleged that their services were illegally terminated by the management of the petitioners and, therefore, they claimed for their reinstatement with back wages. However, the management of the petitioners settled the dispute with the respondent's co-worker Sh. Rama Nand while reference was pending before the Labour Court and this is borne out from an order dated 04. 01. 2005 in the file of the Lower Court. The respondent in order to prove his claim filed his evidence by way of affidavit in which he claimed that he was appointed by the petitioners as Screen Printer w. e. f. 01. 01. 1998 and was illegally terminated from their service w. e. f. 04. 12. 2000. This testimony of the respondent workman remained totally unrebutted because the management of the petitioners chose not to cross-examine the workman despite opportunity given to it.