NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/000667

W.P.(C) 12520/2005

Page 1 of 17

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 14.12.2022

Pronounced on: 31.01.2023

+

W.P.(C) 12520/2005

NARENDER KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.

Piyush

Sharma,

Ms.Sakshi and Mr. Shivam,

Advocates with petitioner in

person

versus

THE MGMT. OF M/S MAMAN CHAND

RAMJI DAS

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Suryakant Singla and Ms.

Karnika Dubey, Advocates

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

J U D G M E N T

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1.The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India impugning the award dated 16.07.2004

(“the impugned award”) passed by the learned Labour Court

Karkardooma, Delhi in Industrial Dispute No. 1495/1997. Vide

the impugned award, the learned Labour Court adjudicated the

dispute in favour of the Respondent and held that the Petitioner

failed to prove that he was under the employment of the

Respondent. Learned Labour Court further considered the fact

that the Petitioner worked at the premises of the Respondent for

Digitally Signed

By:VINOD KUMAR

Signing Date:07.02.2023

12:51:08

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/000667

W.P.(C) 12520/2005

Page 2 of 17

11 years and hence he is entitled to get an amount of 10 months’

salary amounting to Rs.33,500/- (wrongly mentioned as Rs.

35,000/- in the impugned Award) towards his full and final

settlement. Learned Labour Court noted that the Respondent

already paid Rs. 16,000/- and hence directed the Respondent to

pay the Petitioner a balance of Rs.17,500/- (Seventeen Thousand

Five Hundred Rupees) towards his full and final settlement.

2.The Respondent/Management complied with the impugned

Award and made the payment of Rs. 17,500/- to the Petitioner

vide cheque dated 04.08.2007 drawn on Punjab National Bank,

Chandni Chowk, New Delhi.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE

PRESENT DISPUTE

3.It is the case of the Petitioner that he was working as a

clerk/supervisor with the management of the Respondent since

14.01.1985, earning a salary of Rs. 3,350/- per mensem.

Allegedly, dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent has its

genesis from the time when despite numerous requests from the

Petitioner, the Petitioner’s name was not updated in the

employment register/record of the Respondent. Moreover, the

Respondent since 01.05.1996 failed to duly remunerate the

Petitioner for his services and on 04.07.1996, the Petitioner was

terminated from the service without payment of arrears. The

petitioner on 28.09.1996 served upon the Respondent legal notice

demanding payment of arrears of his salary and immediate

reinstatement in the service.

Digitally Signed

By:VINOD KUMAR

Signing Date:07.02.2023

12:51:08

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/000667

W.P.(C) 12520/2005

Page 3 of 17

4.Aggrieved by the aforesaid termination and non-payment of

arrears, the Petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the

appropriate authority. After being satisfied with the existence of

an industrial dispute between the parties, the Appropriate

government referred the matter for adjudication to the learned

Labour Court with the following terms of reference:

5.The Petitioner filed his statement of claims wherein it was

averred that the Petitioner was in a continuous and permanent

employment of the Respondent. It was further contended that the

Respondent illegally terminated services of the petitioner without

complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (“the I.D. Act”)and failed to clear the arrears

of the salary accrued to him.

6.Subsequently, the Respondent via the written statement contested

the claims made by the Petitioner and contended that there

existed no employer-employee relationship between the parties to

the dispute. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner was employed by

one of the