Dismissed

Malik International Pharmaceuticals through Its Sole Proprietor Ashok Malik v. Anamika Malik

Delhi HC6 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/12477/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employer challenged a labour authority award directing payment of Rs.6,36,370 in wages to its respondent, contending she was not a workman and that the ex-parte award was passed during Covid-19. As the employer's review application was already pending before the Authority, the Court requested expeditious hearing of it; the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue the pending review application; Authority requested to hear it expeditiously.

Malik International Pharmaceuticals through Its… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~61

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12477/2024 & CM Appl.51905/2024 MALIK INTERNATIONAL PHARMACEUTICALS THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR ASHOK MALIK .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Akshya, Mr. Ashish Sheoran and Mr. Daman Yadav, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

ANAMIKA MALIK .....Respondent

¶7

Through:

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶10

% 06.09.2024

¶11

CM Appl.51906/2024 [Seeking exemption from filing certified copies]

¶12

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶13

The Application stands disposed of.

¶14

W.P.(C) 12477/2024 & CM Appl.51905/2024 [Stay]

¶15

The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner impugning the award dated 13.04.2021 [hereinafter referred to as “the Impugned Award”] passed by the learned Authority under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954, Labour Department, Government of NCT of Delhi. By the Impugned Award, the learned Authority has passed directions to pay wages in the sum of Rs.6,36,370/- to the Respondent/Claimant within 30 days.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in the first instance, submits that the Respondent was not employed with the Petitioner but was in fact the wife of the Petitioner and that there are disputes between the parties which have resulted in multiple matrimonial proceedings. He further submits that in any event, as per the statement of claim of the Respondent, she is stated to

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/09/2024 at 12:16:00

¶18

be working in a managerial capacity at a monthly salary of Rs.45,455/- per month and thus, does not fall within the purview of a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶19

4.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Impugned Award was passed ex-parte during the time of the Covid-19 Pandemic and thus the Petitioner was unable to pursue his defence before the learned Authority.

¶20

4.2 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that he has also filed a Review Application on 27.03.2024 of the Impugned Award setting out these contentions, however, the Review Application has not yet been taken up for hearing by the learned Authority.

¶21

4.3 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the enforcement proceedings qua the Impugned Award have been initiated by the Respondent and the warrants of arrest for non-compliance thereto have been executed by the learned MM-04, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. He seeks to rely upon the order dated 24.06.2024. A copy of the said order has been handed over to the Court today.

¶22

Given the fact that the Review Application of the Impugned Award is pending adjudication, this Court deems it appropriate to request the concerned Authority to take up the Review Application filed by the Petitioner expeditiously.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid, learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks and is granted permission of the Court to withdraw the present Petition with liberty to pursue the Review Application in accordance with law.

¶24

The Petition and pending Application stands dismissed as withdrawn.

¶25

Registry is directed to scan and upload the order dated 24.06.2024 so

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/09/2024 at 12:16:00

¶28

that it remains embedded in the case file.

¶29

Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

¶30

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶31

SEPTEMBER 6, 2024/r

¶32

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶33

Malik International Pharmaceuticals through Its Sole Proprietor Ashok Malik v. Anamika Malik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malik International Pharmaceuticals through Its Sole Proprietor Ashok Malik v. Anamika Malik

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

Umesh Kumar Tyagi Vs Dav Public School & Ors.

R.P.Dabas Vs University Grants Commission

Ramavtar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Satinder Pal Singh Vs the Commissioner and Others

Ajay Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Om Prakash Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited and Others

M/S Capital Land Builder Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of East Delhi & Ors.

Shakti Singh Thakur Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jama Masjid Shaheen Bagh Trust through Its Trustee Inamullah Vs Mehruddin & Ors.

Rfb Latex Private Limited Vs Central Board of Trustees and Anr.

Prashant Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indraprastha Apollo Hospital Emplyees Union (through Its Secretary) Vs Govt. of NCT and Anr.

Gurukripa Transformer Vs Kamal Singh Manral & Anr.

Delhi Public Library Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.