Dismissed¶¶22

Hst Enterprises v. Sunil & Anr.

Delhi HC22 May 2025W.P.(C)/5090/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HST Enterprises v. Sunil & Anr., W.P.(C) 5090/2025, CM APPL. 23318/2025, High Court of Delhi, decided 22.05.2025 by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri (oral judgment). Challenge to Labour Court Award dated 30.11.2023: termination of workman (Electrician Helper) on 30.11.2016 held illegal and unjustifiable; Rs.75,000/- compensation with 9% interest in lieu of reinstatement; last drawn salary Rs.8,252/- per month; management No.1 ex-parte 23.03.2019; petitioner's right of cross-examination closed 03.10.2023; management evidence closed 24.11.2023; no perversity shown; writ petition and pending application dismissed. No statutes or precedent cases cited in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

In the present challenge, the petitioner/management No.2 failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned Award of the Labour Court. ¶¶22

Hst Enterprises Vs Sunil & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

% Date of Decision: 22.05.2025

¶3

W.P.(C) 5090/2025, CM APPL. 23318/2025

¶4

HST ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A.K. Bajpai, Advocate. Versus SUNIL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

¶6

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶7

By way of present petition, the petitioner/management No. 2 seeks to assail the impugned Award dated 30.11.2023 vide which the Labour Court returned a finding that services of respondent No.1 were terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management on 30.11.2016. Further, in lieu of the reinstatement, a compensation of Rs.75,000/- was granted to the workman/respondent No.1 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.

¶8

The facts, as gathered from the records, are that the workman/respondent No.1 in his statement of claim, had claimed that he was employed as Electrician (Helper). It was further claimed that though initially he was employed with petitioner/management No.2 whereafter he was deployed with respondent No.2/management No.1 since April, 2014 and his last drawn salary was Rs.8,252/- per month. It was further claimed that the workman/respondent No.1 was working under the direct supervision and control of both the managements out of whom respondent No.2 / management No.1 was the principal employer. When the

¶9

Signature Not Verified

¶10

W.P.(C) 5090/2025 Page 1 of 3

¶11

Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Da te:2 7.05.2025 22:43:05

¶12

workman/respondent No.1 asked for legal benefits including the issuance of appointment letter, attendance card, pay slip, leave book etc., petitioner / management No.2 terminated his services on 30.11.2016. It was also claimed that the petitioner / management No.2 also did not pay the wages for the period w.e.f. 01.11.2016 to 29.11.2016. On being served, while respondent No.2/management No.1 chose not to appear and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.03.2019, the petitioner / management No.2 filed its written statement and admitted to the employment of workman/respondent No.1 from 01.05.2015 to 13.06.2016. It was stated that the workman/respondent No.1 was thereafter employed with a different management. As the agreement period had also expired, the petitioner/management No.2 also offered a job at the different location which was also denied by the workman/respondent No.1. Considering the pleadings following issues were framed by the Labour Court :-

¶13

(1) Whether the claimant had worked with the management w.e.f April, 2014 to 30.11.2016 or workman worked with the management for 240 days continuously prior to the termination of his services on dated 30.11.2016? OPW

¶14

(2) Whether the services of the claimant were terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the management? OPW

¶15

(3) Whether the workman had left the job of his own? OPM

¶16

(4) Relief.

¶17

The workman/respondent No.1 filed its evidence by way affidavit and reiterated the contents of the statement of claims. The demand notice was exhibited as Ex. WW1/1. Despite opportunities, the petitioner/management No.2 failed to cross-examine the workman/respondent No.1 and eventually their right to cross-examine was closed. Later, an application came to be filed on behalf of petitioner/management No.2 seeking recall of the order

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

W.P.(C) 5090/2025 Page 2 of 3

¶20

Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Da te:2 7.05.2025 22:43:05

¶21

which was allowed and further opportunity was granted. Petitioner/management No.2 however again failed to cross-examine the workman/respondent No.1 resulting into closure of their right to crossexamine vide order dated 03.10.2023. Petitioner/management No.2 also failed to file any affidavit of evidence. In fact, none appeared for the management and eventually their evidence was closed on 24.11.2023. The Labour Court, while considering the issues came to the conclusion that the workman/respondent No.1 worked with the management for about two and half years. Petitioner/management No.2 failed to place on record any notice or notice pay, prior to termination of services. Apparently, the version of workman/respondent No.1 remained unrebutted. The Issue No. 3 was decided against the management as no evidence was led for the same. Consequently, noting the fact that the alleged termination took place on 30.11.2016, the labour Court came to the conclusion that instead of directing for reinstatement, lump sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% would be justified.

¶22

In the present challenge, the petitioner/management No.2 has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Petitioner/management No.2 failed to put any material on record before the Labour Court and despite multiple opportunities they did not avail their right to cross-examine or lead its own evidence. Finding no merits in the present petition, the same is dismissed alongwith pending application.

¶23

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI (JUDGE)

¶24

MAY 22, 2025 ga

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

W.P.(C) 5090/2025 Page 3 of 3

¶27

Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Da te:2 7.05.2025 22:43:05

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Award dated 30.11.2023 of the Labour Court holding that the services of respondent No.1 (workman) were terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management on 30.11.2016, and granting compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum in lieu of reinstatement.¶¶7
Labour Court · 30.11.2023
Prior proceeding
In his statement of claim, the workman/respondent No.1 claimed he was employed as Electrician (Helper).¶¶8
Prior proceeding
Workman claimed initial employment with petitioner/management No.2, thereafter deployment with respondent No.2/management No.1 since April, 2014, with last drawn salary of Rs.8,252/- per month.¶¶8
Prior proceeding
Workman claimed to have worked under the direct supervision and control of both managements, respondent No.2/management No.1 being the principal employer.¶¶8
Prior proceeding
According to the claim, when the workman asked for legal benefits (appointment letter, attendance card, pay slip, leave book etc.), petitioner/management No.2 terminated his services on 30.11.2016.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
It was claimed that petitioner/management No.2 did not pay wages for the period 01.11.2016 to 29.11.2016.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2/management No.1 did not appear before the Labour Court and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.03.2019.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
Petitioner/management No.2 filed a written statement admitting the workman's employment from 01.05.2015 to 13.06.2016, stating he was thereafter employed with a different management, and that an offered job at a different location was denied by the workman.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
The Labour Court framed four issues on the pleadings (employment/240 days, legality of termination, whether workman left job voluntarily, and relief).¶¶12
Prior proceeding
The workman/respondent No.1 filed evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the statement of claims.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
The demand notice was exhibited as Ex. WW1/1.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
Despite opportunities, petitioner/management No.2 failed to cross-examine the workman and its right to cross-examine was closed; a recall application was subsequently allowed and further opportunity granted.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
Petitioner/management No.2 again failed to cross-examine the workman, resulting in closure of its right to cross-examine vide order dated 03.10.2023.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Petitioner/management No.2 filed no affidavit of evidence; none appeared for the management and its evidence was closed on 24.11.2023.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
The Labour Court concluded that the workman worked with the management for about two and a half years; no notice or notice pay was placed on record prior to termination and the workman's version remained unrebutted; Issue No.3 was decided against the management as no evidence was led.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Noting the termination took place on 30.11.2016, the Labour Court held that instead of reinstatement, lump sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 9% would be justified.¶¶21

Hst Enterprises v. Sunil & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hst Enterprises v. Sunil & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India & Ors. Vs Abhay Raj Pal

NTPC Retired Employees Welfare Association and Ors. Vs NTPC Ltd. and Ors.

Ge Steam Power Inc( Earlier Known as M/S Alstom Power Inc) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

M/S Ge Power Gmbh ( Earlier Known as M/S Ge Power Ag and Ealier to That as Alstom Power Ag) Vs Assistent Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int Tax 1(3) (1) and Anr.

M/S a.P.Apparels Vs the Labour Commissioner & Ors.

Siddhartha Kothari Vs Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation 3 & Anr.

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Vs Vodafone Idea Limited

Sahil Arora Vs Commissioner of Excise, Entt. and Luxury Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.

Sh. Mirza Rashid Beg Vs Archeological Survey of India and Ors.

Surender S/O Sh Lahori Ram Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Ms Century Overseas Vs Shri Sartaj Ali

Sh Anuj Mann and Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Hst Enterprises Vs Kapil & Anr.

M/S Eagle Hunter Solutions Ltd. Vs Jagjeevan Prasad Kotnala