Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 495
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GAURANG KANTH, J.
ARUN RAI – Petitioner
Versus
CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 9382 of 2018, C.M. No. 36369 of 2018
Decided On : 17-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, Dinesh Kumar.
For the Respondents: Rishikesh Kumar, Aditya Raj.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the workman to prove entitlement to the benefit in terms of money and the employer-employee relationship to claim back wages and further wages under Section 33 (C)(2) of the ID Act.
Headnote:
ID Act - Industrial Disputes - Section 33 (C)(2) - [GAURANG KANTH, J.] - [ID Act, Section 33 (C)(2)] - The court held that the Petition filed by the Petitioners/Workmen under Section 33 (C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not maintainable against Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management. The claim of the Petitioners/Workmen to recover the back wages from Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management was disallowed.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners/Workmen sought relief of regularization of their services and claimed back wages and further wages after being terminated by Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management. The Petitioners/Workmen approached the learned Labour Court under Section 33 (C)(2) of the ID Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no employer-employee relationship between Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management and the Petitioners/Workmen. The Petitioners/Workmen failed to prove their entitlement to back wages and further wages. The court dismissed the Petition filed by the Petitioners/Workmen under Section 33 (C)(2) of the ID Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Petitioners’ claim under Section 33 (C)(2) of the ID Act is maintainable against Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of Section 33 (C)(2) of the ID Act and emphasized the need for the workman to prove entitlement to the benefit in terms of money. It also highlighted the requirement for the workman to establish the employer-employee relationship to claim back wages and further wages.
Final Decision: The present Writ Petition was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
GAURANG KANTH, J.
1. The Petitioners/Workmen in the present writ Petition are assailing the impugned Award dated 12.04.2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-V, Dwarka Courts in ID No. 1610/2016 (“impugned award”).
2. Learned Labour Court, vide the impugned Award, was pleased to hold that the Petition filed by the Petitioners/Workmen under Section 33 (C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”) was not maintainable against Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management. In view of the said finding, learned Labour Court disallowed the claim of the Petitioners/Workmen to recover the back wages from Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management.
FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION:
3. The Petitioners/Workmen approached the learned Labour Court under Section 33 (C)(2) of the ID Act, claiming that they were employed by Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management through Respondent No. 4/Contractor since 1994. The Petitioners/Workmen claimed that writ Petition, W.P. (C) No. 7193/2000 was pending before this Court wherein the Petitioners/Workmen were seeking the relief of regularization of their services. This Court also granted a stay with respect to termination of the services of the Petitioners/Workmen. However, Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management terminated the services of the Petitioners/ Workmen w.e.f. 11.10.2004 and did not pay the wages for the period 01.09.2004 to 10.10.2004 to the Petitioners/Workmen. Aggrieved by such action of Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management, the Petitioners/Workmen filed the Petition under Section 33 (C) (2) of the ID Act seeking relief of continuity of employment and for payment of backwages and further wages.
4. Subsequently, the Petitioners/Workmen made a statement dated 23.02.2018 before the learned Labour Court and withdrew their claim qua the relief of declaration related to continuity in employment and limited their claim to the relief of back wages and further wages.
5. Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management filed their written statement contending that there was no employer-employee relationship between the Petitioners/Workmen and Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management. The contract for the security services was awarded to the Respondent No. 4 Contractor through tendering process and the payment for undertaking the said security services was paid to Respondent No. 4/Contractor. Therefore, Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management was not responsible for the payment of back wages and further wages as claimed by the Petitioners/Workmen.
6. Respondent No. 4 (M/s. Jai Jawan Security Agency) failed to appear before the learned Labour Court despite service. Hence, Respondent No. 4 was proceeded ex-parte by the learned Labour Court.
7. Based on the evidence adduced by the parties, Learned Labour Court framed the following issues:
“1. Whether the Petition under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Act was maintainable against the Respondent Nos. 1-3?
2. To what amount, if any, the Petitioner is entitled from the Respondent No. 1 to 3 and or Respondent No. 4?
3. Relief?”
8. In order to substantiate their Claim, the Petitioners/Workmen stepped into the witness box as WW-1 to WW-4 and placed on record the documents WW-1/1 to WW-1/8 and the attendance register as Mark A. On behalf of Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management, Mr. A.K. Soni, Executive Engineer was examined as MW-1. He proved on record the contract between Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management and Respondent No. 4.
9. Learned Labour Court based on the evidence adduced by the parties, held that there was no employer-employee relationship between Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management and the Petitioners/Workmen. In view of the said findings, learned Labour Court held that the Petitioners/Workmen are not entitled to recover any amount from Respondent Nos. 1-3/Management and dismissed the Petition filed by the Petitioners/Workmen under Section 33 (C) (2) of the ID Act.
10. Being aggrieved by the impugned Award, the Petitioners/Workmen preferred the present Writ Petition. Despite service, there was no appearanc
