Remanded

Sunil Kumar Jha v. Sushil and Ors.

Delhi HC2 May 2019W.P.(C)/3274/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an ex parte order under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act due to lack of proof of service. The matter is remanded to the Authority to decide afresh after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.11.2011 set aside; matter remanded to the Authority for afresh consideration after giving petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

Sunil Kumar Jha Vs Sushil and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3274/2013

¶4

SUNIL KUMAR JHA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Desh Raj, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

SUSHIL AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: None.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 02.05.2019

¶9

None appears for the respondents.

¶10

It is seen that despite sufficient opportunity, the respondents have not filed their counter affidavit as yet. Considering that the present petition was filed in May, 2013, this Court does not consider it apposite to await the representation on behalf of the respondents.

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the Authority under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 (hereafter ‘the Authority’) directing the petitioner to pay an aggregate sum of ₹2 lakhs to respondent nos.1 to 8. It is the petitioner’s case that the said respondents were not his employees and therefore, their claim is unsustainable.

¶12

The petitioner further claims that a notice of the proceedings before the Authority was not served on the petitioner and the impugned order was

¶13

passed ex parte . The petitioner further claims that respondent no.9 was not a supervisor as claimed by him, and the impugned order had been passed on the admission made by respondent no.9. The petitioner states that since respondent no.9 was not a supervisor in the employment of the petitioner, therefore, his statement/admissions could not have been relied upon to impose a liability on the petitioner.

¶14

Since, there is no material placed on record to indicate that the petitioner was served or the notice had been refused by him, as is recorded in the impugned order, this Court considers it apposite to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the concerned authority to consider afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

¶15

This Court is also informed that the petitioner has deposited a sum ₹2 lakhs with the Registrar General of this Court. The said amount will continue to be retained by the Registry of this Court and would abide any order that may be passed by the Authority.

¶16

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid directions.

¶17

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶18

MAY 02, 2019 MK

Sunil Kumar Jha v. Sushil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Jha v. Sushil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Babu Ram Sagar Vs Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Shri Govind Vs Land and Building Department

Shri Jai Raj Vs Land and Building Department

Shri Tejpal Vs Land and Building Department

Himanshu Kumar Verma and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Manish Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Haaris Rasheed & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ajay Gandhi and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Om Shyam Traders Vs Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee

X Minor through His Mother Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Daulat Ram Punia and Ors. Vs Commandant Base Hospital and Anr.

Hajra Topia Vs Union of India and Ors.

S. Sadachari Sai Baba Om Ji Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bano Devi and Anr. Vs National Commission for Scheduled Castes