$~21

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 8^th October, 2021

+

W.P.(C) 12072/2019 & CM APPLs. 49462/2019, 25815/2021

KBT PLASTICS PVT LTD & ANR.

....Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Rachit Batra, Advocate

(M: 9818383584)

versus

RAJENDER SINGH

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate with

Respondent

in

person

(M:

9810603901)

Mr.

Rabindra

Nanda,

Oath

Commissioner (M: 9971386901)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Managements of

Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 challenging the Award dated 07^th September, 2019

passed by the Labour Court-V, Rouse Avenue Court Complex (hereinafter

“Labour Court”) in ID No.2170/17 titled Sh. Rajender Singh v. M/s. KBT

Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

3. The background of the case is that the Respondent/Workman was

employed with the Petitioners/Managements as a field worker at a monthly

salary of Rs.10,000/-. The dispute arises out of the alleged illegal

termination of the Workman’s services by the Management on 22^nd July,

2016. Thereafter, on 22^nd July, 2017, the Workman filed his claim petition

before the Labour Court. The case of the Workman is that he joined services

with the Management on 1^st April, 2007, after which the Management failed

2021:DHC:3243

to provide benefits such as appointment letter, weekly and yearly leave,

overtime allowance, bonus etc. When the aforementioned benefits were

demanded by the Workman, his services were illegally terminated on 22^nd

July, 2016 without any notice and payment of earned wages for the period

between 1^st May, 2016 to 21^st July, 2016. It was also averred by the

Workman that the Managements’ firms are being run by the same owners

and the Workman was forced to work for both the firms.

4. On the other hand, the case of the Management is that the Workman

was employed with the Petitioner No.1 on 1^st December, 2010 and has been

absconding from his duties from 31^st July, 2012 onwards, without any

notice. It is submitted that the Workman again approached the Management

to join his duties and was reemployed on 11^th November, 2014. However,

the Workman misappropriated an amount of Rs.20,000/- belonging to the

Petitioner No.1 and thereafter, absconded from service yet again in July,

2016. Thus, it is the stand of the Management that the Workman’s services

were terminated by the Management and the Workman left the job of his

own accord.

5. Vide impugned Award dated 07^th September, 2019, the Labour Court

has, after holding that the Respondent/Workman was an employee of both

the Petitioners/Managements and that the Petitioner No.2 had intentionally

concealed true facts from the Court, directed Petitioner No.l to reinstate the

Workman with back wages equivalent to 1.5 times of the wages payable to a

skilled worker. Further, the Labour Court has awarded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs

as compensation to the Workman for harassment, illegal termination and

legal costs. The operative portion of the impugned Award dated 7^th

September, 2019 is extracted below:

2021:DHC:3243

49. Reference answered accordingly.”

6. Aggrieved by the impugned Award dated 7^th September, 2019, the

2021:DHC:3243

Petitioners/Managements preferred the present petition challenging the

same. In the course of the proceedings before this Court, notice was issued

vide order dated 18^th November, 2019. Thereafter, an application seeking

litigation expenses was moved by the Workman and the same was listed for

the first time on 12^th August, 2021. Vide order dated 29^th September, 2021,

ld. Counsel for the Petitioner had brought to the notice of the Court that the

signature of the Deponent i.e., the Workman, in the counter affidavit and the

affidavit supporting the application for litigation expenses do not match.

Thus, the Workman was directed to appear in person.