SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top