J U D G M E N T

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,J :

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated

25.03.2022 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, vide which the Learned Labour Court partly allowed the application of the Respondent workman (claimant therein) under order XII Rule 6, CPC, in the petition bearing LIR No. 1260/19, under Section 17 (2) of the Working Journalist and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Misc. Provisions Act, 1955, (W.J. Act) filed on behalf of the workman, seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against statutory dues and inter alia held that there is no requirement of leading any evidence regarding the relationship of employer and the employee.

2. Following two issues were framed to be adjudicated and determined:

(i) Whether employee - employer relationship exists between the claimant Sh. Chandra Prakash Pandey S/o Late Sh. Satya Nath Pandey (Age-44 years, Mobile No.9013121141) and the respondents/ managements?

(ii) And if so, claimant Sh. Chandra Prakash Pandey S/o late Sh.

Satya Nath Pandey is entitled to difference of arrears of wages amounting Rs.84,97,158.76/- for the period from 01.01.2006 to 01.07.2018 as per Majithia Wage Board recommendation under Working Journalist and Other newspaper Employees(Conditions of Service) and Misc. Provisions Act, 1955, and if so, what directions are necessary in this regard?

3. During the proceedings, respondent workman preferred an application under Order XII, Rule 6, CPC seeking an order on admission qua the management for issuance of recovery certificate as per the statement of claim filed on behalf of the workman. Learned Labour Court vide the Impugned Order has partly allowed the application of the respondent workman under Order XII, Rule 6, CPC, only to the limited extent of the 1st issue and disallowed the same with respect to the 2nd issue and inter alia held as under:

“10. Accordingly application is disposed of and decided to the extent that there is no controversy remained to be adjudicated on the issue of employee employer relationship between the management and workman and no evidence is required to be led. There is no admission by management on the issue of dues as referred in para 9 of claim petition by the claimant alleging that he is entitled to recover arrears as on 01.01.2006 to 01.07.2018amounting to Rs. 79,17,840.25 and dues from January, 2008 to November, 2011 amounting to Rs. 5,79,358.51. Totalling Rs.84,97,158.76. Though there is admission qua employee and employer relationship between the parties but there is noun equivocal and unambiguous admission on the part of management regarding arrears to the tune of Rs. 84,97,158.76which is to be proved by leading evidence by both the parties. In such circumstances, the application in hand cannot be allowed in totality. It is made clear that no evidence is required to be led on the issue of employer employee relationship. Application is accordingly disposed of.”

4. Thus the main grievance of the petitioner management is that vide the Impugned Order, the Learned Labour Court held that there exists relationship of employer -employee qua the parties and closed petitioners‟ opportunity to raise objections and lead further evidence with respect to the same.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER/ MANAGEMENT

5. Learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the present matter as Respondent No. 2 is not a Workman and the impugned order suffers from illegality on the face of the record. Reliance is placed on the judgement dated 05.05.2006of the Supreme Court in “Municipal Council, Sujanpur vs. Surinder Kumar”, (2006) 5 SCC 173, whereby it was observed that the High Court's jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari though is limited, can be issued if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

6. Impugned order passed by the Learned Labour Court is perverse and not maintainable as the issue of employer-employee relationship qua the