The court ruled that under the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner could withdraw an improperly referenced case to ensure due process, affirming the need for correct identification in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

[Judgement pronounced via videoconferencing on account of COVID-19]

Rajiv Shakdher, J.

Table of Contents

Preface:-

1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 12.02.2018 passed by the concerned labour court in LIR No. 3538/17. The principal grievance of the petitioner is, that the labour court has ruled on the reference made to it, although, he had made a plea for withdrawing the reference.

2. The record shows that the petitioner advanced the plea for withdrawing the reference on two grounds.

2.1 First, that his name had been wrongly recorded as "Rakesh" in the reference whereas his name is "Rakesh Ghosh" on the aadhar card.

2.2 Secondly, the name of his employer i.e. the respondent herein had been recorded in the order of reference as "J.M.J. Signage" whereas the correct name was "JMJ Signage (Print India)".

Background facts:-

3. Before I deal with the pleas advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it may be relevant to note the following broad facts and circumstances, which led to the institution of this writ petition.

3.1 The petitioner claims that he was employed by the respondent in 2010 and worked as a field worker at monthly wages of Rs. 12,000/-. It is also averred that the petitioner worked for nearly 12 hours a day.

3.2 In support of his plea, the petitioner has relied upon a copy of the extract, taken from the register, supposedly, maintained by the respondent. The petitioner claims that, because he was being denied his statutory rights, which included, timely payment of salary, overtime wages, issuance of a formal appointment letter, attendance card, leave -book, payslip, yearly and casual leave, he made a demand in respect of the same in and about 08.01.2017, which, ultimately, led to his termination from service.

3.3 It is averred by the petitioner that his services were terminated without prior notice or payment of due salary. According to the petitioner, arrears of salary for the period spanning between 01.01.2014 and 01.12.2016 were not paid to him when his services were terminated, albeit, without inquiry. It is, thus, averred that there was a violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "I.D. Act").

4. It is in this backdrop, the petitioner claims, that he filed a complaint dated 09.01.2017 with the Deputy Labour Commissioner which, essentially, concerned non-payment of salary/dues, and also, followed it up with a complaint lodged, on the same date, with the Station House Officer ("SHO"), P.S. Karol Bagh.

4.1 Although, the petitioner has also averred that he dispatched a letter on 08.02.2017 to the respondent, via speed post, demanding payment of outstanding salary and reinstatement of his services, a copy of this letter has not been placed before the court.

5. Be that as it may, it appears that the conciliation proceedings were carried out before the conciliation officer which having failed, propelled the Deputy Labour Commissioner (District Centre) to pass an order on 20.12.2017, referring the dispute for adjudication, to the concerned labour court. The terms of the reference, as framed in the order dated 20.12.2017, are set forth hereafter:

"Whether services of Sh. Rakesh S/o Sh. Naru Gopal Age 25 years have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, if so, to what relief is he entit