M/S a.P.Apparels Vs the Labour Commissioner & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

M/S a.P.Apparels Vs the Labour Commissioner & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions filed under Article 226 seeking setting aside of the Labour Court awards dated 05.09.2019 passed in ID Nos. 9750/2016 and 9751/2016 should be allowed. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitions do not raise any substantial ground and being meritless, are dismissed alongwith pending applications.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has failed miserably in disassociating the management from Mohd. Shoaib Alam; the plea that his appearance was unauthorised appears to be clearly an afterthought.

Key takeaways

This Court concurs with the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner failed to appear before it, despite being served.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.) dismissed W.P.(C) 15801/2023 and W.P.(C) 16239/2023 filed by M/s A.P. Apparels under Article 226 seeking setting aside of awards dated 05.09.2019 (ID Nos. 9750/2016 & 9751/2016), whereby the Labour Court — finding the terminations of workmen Indal Kumar Betha (employed since January 2001) and Sanjay Chauhan (since January 2010), both 'Press Men' on Rs.14,000/- last drawn salary, illegal in violation of Section 25F, I.D. Act — had awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.1,30,000/- respectively, with 9% interest, in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Summonses were attempted on 22.02.2017 (premises locked), 02.05.2017 (occupant refused) and 10.08.2017, when Mohd. Shoaib Alam, identifying himself as Supervisor, was met and the summons copy affixed on the property; on 22.08.2017 his receipt of summons through post was endorsed; none appeared on 26.09.2017 and the management was proceeded ex parte. Rejecting the plea, pressed nearly four years after the awards, that the petitioner was never summoned and that Shoaib Alam was unauthorised, the Court held the attempt to disassociate the management from him a clear afterthought, concurred that the petitioner failed to appear despite being served, and dismissed the petitions as meritless alongwith pending applications.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 23.05.2025 + W.P.(C) 15801/2023, CM APPL. 63583/2023

M/S A.P.APPARELS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneesh Bahri, Advocate.

versus

THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shikha and Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocates for R-3 alongwith R-3 in person.

+ W.P.(C) 16239/2023, CM APPL. 65320/2023

M/S A.P.APPARELS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneesh Bahri, Advocate.

versus

THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shikha and Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocates for R-3 alongwith R-3 in person.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT (ORAL)

By way of above-noted petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned awards dated 05.09.2019 passed in ID No. 9750/2016 and 9751/2016

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 15801/2023 & W.P.(C) 16239/2023 Page 1 of 4

Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Da te:2 8.05.2025 01:59:45

respectively.

Since both the petitions have been filed by the same petitioner against the respondents/workmen who claim themselves to be their employees and further in view of the common submissions having been addressed, both the petitions are taken up for consideration and disposed of by this common judgment.

Upon claims being raised by the workmen, namely Indal Kumar Betha and Sanjay Chauhan , being respondents No.3 in both the petitions, individual references were sent by the Joint Labour Commissioner, Labour Department, West District, GNCTD.

On receipt of the references, notices were issued to the workmen after which statement of claims came to be filed. In their respective claims, the respondents No.3/workmen had claimed that their services were terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management. While the workman/ Indal Kumar Beth a claimed employment with the petitioner since January 2001, the other workman/ Sanjay Chauhan claimed employment since January, 2010. Both the workmen claimed that they were employed at the post of ‘Press Man’ with a last drawn salary of Rs.14,000/-. They alleged that action of termination was taken without issuance of prior notice. It was further alleged that during their service tenure, the management did not provide them with legal facilities like transfer letter, appointment letter, leave book, wage slip, casual/annual leaves, bonus, overtime wages etc. and when the same were demanded, their services were terminated by the management on 21.06.2016. It was further claimed that management did not provide their wages from 01.05.2016 to 20.06.2016 in utter violation of provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, the I.D. Act).

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 15801/2023 & W.P.(C) 16239/2023 Page 2 of 4

Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Da te:2 8.05.2025 01:59:45

The workmen sent the demand notice through registered post which remained unanswered. In both the references, the management was duly served however, it chose not to appear and was eventually proceeded exparte on 26.09.2017 in both the cases. Both the workmen examined themselves and also filed their evidence by way of affidavits. As the management failed to appear, the Labour Court considered the averments and the evidence placed on record and returned a finding that services of both the workmen were terminated illegally in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. Labour Court, observing that considerable time had passed, thought it fit to award compensation instead of reinstatement. Accordingly, lump sum compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.1,30,000/- was awarded to the workmen i.e. Indal Kumar Betha and Sanjay Chauhan respectively in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and other consequential benefits. The Award also carried interest @ 9% from the date it becomes due till the time it is realised.

Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was never summoned and one Mr. Mohd. Shoaib Alam whose appearance was marked, was never authorised to appear on its behalf.

Pertinently, the present petition has been filed after nearly four years of the passing of the impugned Awards. A perusal of the Labour Court Record would show that process was issued on multiple occasions. The first attempt of service was made on 22.02.2017 when the premises of the petitioner was found locked. Another attempt was made on 02.05.2017 when Process Server visited the premises of the petitioner at second floor, Jwala Heri and met a person who did not identify himself and refused to take summons. On 10.08.2017, Process Server again visited the premises of the

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 15801/2023 & W.P.(C) 16239/2023 Page 3 of 4

Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Da te:2 8.05.2025 01:59:45

petitioner at second and third floor, Jwala Heri where he met one Mohd. Shoaib Alam who identified himself as Supervisor. Process Server also affixed copy of the summons on the property. On next date of hearing, i.e . 22.08.2017 though the Court was on leave however, it was recorded that Mohd. Shoaib Alam appeared and an endorsement was made to the effect that he had received the copy of the summons through post. The matter was listed on the next date i.e. 26.09.2017, when none appeared for the petitioner and the matter was proceeded ex-parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to disassociate the management from Mohd. Shoaib Alam however, a perusal of the writ petition would show that there are no pleadings on the aforesaid aspect. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has failed miserably in disassociating the management from Mohd. Shoaib Alam and the same appears to be clearly an afterthought.

In light of the above, this Court concurs with the finding of the Labour court that the petitioner failed to appear before it, despite being served. The petitions do not raise any substantial ground and being meritless, are dismissed alongwith pending applications.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI (JUDGE)

MAY 23, 2025 ga

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 15801/2023 & W.P.(C) 16239/2023 Page 4 of 4

Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Da te:2 8.05.2025 01:59:45

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Ex-parte awards dated 05.09.2019 in ID Nos. 9750/2016 and 9751/2016 awarding lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and consequential benefits; sought to be set aside by the petitioner.¶11
Labour Court · 05.09.2019
Prior proceeding
Upon claims raised by workmen Indal Kumar Betha and Sanjay Chauhan (respondents No.3 in both petitions), individual references were sent by the Joint Labour Commissioner, Labour Department, West District, GNCTD.¶17
Prior proceeding
Workman Indal Kumar Betha claimed employment with the petitioner since January 2001; workman Sanjay Chauhan claimed employment since January 2010.¶18
Prior proceeding
Both workmen claimed employment at the post of 'Press Man' with a last drawn salary of Rs.14,000/-.¶18
Prior proceeding
Workmen alleged that termination was effected without issuance of prior notice.¶18
Prior proceeding
Following demands for legal facilities (transfer letter, appointment letter, leave book, wage slip, casual/annual leaves, bonus, overtime wages etc.), the management terminated the services of both workmen on 21.06.2016.¶18
Prior proceeding
Workmen further alleged non-payment of wages from 01.05.2016 to 20.06.2016, stated to be in violation of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.¶18
Prior proceeding
Demand notice sent by the workmen through registered post remained unanswered.¶22
Prior proceeding
Though duly served, the management chose not to appear and was proceeded ex parte on 26.09.2017 in both the references.¶22
Prior proceeding
First service attempt on 22.02.2017: premises of the petitioner found locked.¶24
Prior proceeding
Second service attempt on 02.05.2017: Process Server met a person at second floor, Jwala Heri who did not identify himself and refused to take summons.¶24
Prior proceeding
Third service attempt on 10.08.2017: Process Server again visited the premises of the petitioner (sentence continues on next page).¶24
Prior proceeding
During the 10.08.2017 visit, Process Server met Mohd. Shoaib Alam who identified himself as Supervisor, and affixed a copy of the summons on the property.¶28
Prior proceeding
On 22.08.2017 (Court on leave), it was recorded that Mohd. Shoaib Alam appeared and endorsed receipt of the copy of summons through post.¶28
Prior proceeding
With the management absent, the Labour Court considered the averments and affidavit evidence and returned a finding that services of both workmen were terminated illegally in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act.¶22
Prior proceeding
Observing that considerable time had passed, the Labour Court awarded lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and other consequential benefits — Rs.2,50,000/- to Indal Kumar Betha and Rs.1,30,000/- to Sanjay Chauhan.¶22
Prior proceeding
The Award carried interest @ 9% from the date it becomes due till realisation.¶22