PRASAD PSYCHO CORPORATION Vs. LABOUR DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present petition, the petitioners namely M/s. Prasad Psycho Corporation based in Delhi and M/s. Indian Institution of Psychology based in Noida have sought quashing of order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the competent authority under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') based on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2.

(2.) The brief facts as emerge from the record and are necessary for adjudication of the present petition may be noted. The respondent no.2 claiming to have been working as an Assistant Professor (Guest) of petitioner no.2 from April, 2014, on the last drawn wages of Rs.3,000/- per day along with Rs.10,000/- for each topic per workshop, filed a complaint before the competent authority under the Act on 25.08.2015, claiming a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- from the petitioners. In her complaint, she alleged that she had worked with petitioner no. 2 institute for 70 days between 15.04.2014 and 10.07.2014, but had not been paid her wages for the said period. A perusal of the claim made by the respondent no.2 shows that she had impleaded not only the petitioner no.2, Indian Institute of Psychology based at Noida but had also impleaded petitioner no.1, i.e., M/s. Prasad Psycho Corporation based at Delhi through its sole proprietor who was also the Acting Chairman of petitioner No. 2, is the sole proprietor.

(3.) Since the petitioner no.1, i.e. M/s. Prasad Psycho Corporation was admittedly based at Delhi, respondent no.2's claim petition was entertained and allowed by the Competent authority in Delhi. Impugning the said order, learned counsel for the petitioners states that a perusal of the claim statement filed by the respondent no.2 as also the statement of one, Ms. Jyoti Gupta, who had stepped into the witness box in support of respondent no.2's claim, in itself makes it evident that the respondent no.2 was never engaged by the petitioner no.1/corporation and had been engaged only by the petitioner no.2 at Noida. He states that respondent no.2 had wrongly impleaded petitioner no.1 only in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the authority at Delhi, the competent authority at Delhi did not at all have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain such a claim and therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.