2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 20330
DELHI HIGH COURT
SPIRITED AUTO CAS (I) LTD. (ESPIRIT TOYOTA ) – Appellant
Versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS – Respondent
LPA-107/2020 2023:DHC:6302-DB
$~A-4
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
LPA 107/2020 & CM APPL.6893/2020
SPIRITED AUTO CAS (I) LTD. (ESPIRIT TOYOTA )..... Appellant
Through:
Mr.Manoj
Kumar
Garg,
Advocate
(through VC).
Versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through:
Ms.Lija
Merin
John,
Advocate
(through VC).
%
Date of Decision: 31stAugust, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL)
1.
Present appeal has been filed challenging the judgments and orders
dated 04thFebruary, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petitions being W.P.(C) 1282/2020, 1283/2020, 1285/2020, 1286/2020,
1287/2020 and 1289/2020 as well as awards dated 3rdSeptember, 2019
passed in ID Nos. 1542/2017, 1543/2017, 1544/2017, 1545/2017, 1546/2017
and 1547/2017.
2.
Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the learned Single Judge
failed to consider that even if the defence of the management had been
struck off, then also management was entitled to cross-examine the
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.09.2023
18:21:19
Signature Not Verified
witnesses and to address argument on the basis of the case set up by the
workmen. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Modula India Vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo, (1988) 4 SCC
619 and M/s Paradise Industrial Corpn v. M/s Kiln Plastic Products,
(1976) 1 SCC 91 wherein it has been held that even when a defence is struck
off, the management/defendant is entitled to appear, cross-examine the
workmen/plaintiffs’ witnesses and submit that even on the basis of the
evidence on behalf of the workman, the award cannot be passed.
3.
Learned counsel for the Appellant also states that the learned Single
Judge failed to consider that there had been a violation of principles of
natural justice, inasmuch as, the Appellant-Company was not adequately
represented by its counsel on record before the District & Sessions Judge,
POLC-V, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, Delhi on the date the impugned
awards were passed.
4.
A perusal of the paperbook reveals that on 9thMay, 2017, the Deputy
Labour Commissioner had framed the following terms of reference and had
referred the disputes to the Labour Court for adjudication:-
5.
Thereafter admittedly, the Appellant-Company was served with
copies of statements of claims and it was given an opportunity to file its
written statements. As the written statements were not filed, the Additional
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.09.2023
18:21:19
Signature Not Verified
District & Sessions Judge, POLC-V vide order dated 8thJuly, 2019 extended
the time for filing the written statements subject to payment of costs of
Rs.10,000/- in each case. The order dated 8thJuly, 2019 is reproduced
herienbelow: -
“ID No.1542-17 to 1547-17
(Vinay Singhal)
Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
POLC-V, Rouse Avenue Court Complex
08.07.2019”
6.
However, as despite imposition of costs, the written statements were
not filed, the Additional District & Sessions Judge, POLC-V struck off the
defence of the management vide order dated 27thAugust, 2019. The matters
were thereafter fixed for evidence of the workmen on 3rdSeptember, 2019.
The order dated 27thAugust, 2019 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“ID No.1542-17 to 1542-17
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.09.2023
18:21:19
Signature Not Verified
Accordingly, on account of non payment of cost as well as non
filing of WS, defence of management stand struck off.
(Vinay Singhal)
Addl. District & Sessions Judge
POLC-V, Rouse Avenue Court Complex
27.08.2019”
7.
On 3rdSeptember, 2019, the workmen examined themselves as WW-1
in their respective cases and brought on record the documents in support of
their claims. However, the Appellant-Company did not come forward to
cross-examine the claimants. It was only thereafter the Labour Court held
that the workmen were entitled to relief of reinstatement with full back
wages and continu