Dismissed¶¶22

Hst Enterprises v. Kapil & Anr.

Delhi HC22 May 2025W.P.(C)/5096/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Illegal and unjustified termination of workman; Labour Court award; compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with 9% interest in lieu of reinstatement; failure to cross-examine despite opportunities; right of cross-examination closed 03.10.2023; management evidence closed 24.11.2023; unrebutted affidavit evidence; demand notice Ex. WW1/1; ex-parte management No.1; writ challenge to labour award dismissed for absence of illegality or perversity; HST Enterprises v. Kapil & Anr.; High Court of Delhi; Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.; 22.05.2025; W.P.(C) 5096/2025; CM APPL. 23330/2025.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the impugned Award dated 30.11.2023 (compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum to the workman) stands, the petition and pending application having been dismissed. ¶¶22

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned Award dated 30.11.2023 of the Labour Court suffers from any illegality or perversity warranting interference in this writ petition by petitioner/management No.2. +4 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

The petitioner/management No.2 failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order (Award dated 30.11.2023).

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner failed to put any material on record before the Labour Court and, despite multiple opportunities, did not avail its right to cross-examine the workman or lead its own evidence.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

Finding no merits in the present petition, it was dismissed alongwith the pending application.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.) dismissed W.P.(C) 5096/2025 with CM APPL. 23330/2025, filed by HST Enterprises (petitioner/management No.2) challenging the Labour Court Award dated 30.11.2023, whereby termination of the workman's (respondent No.1) services on 28.01.2017 was held illegal and unjustified and lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum was granted in lieu of reinstatement. The workman claimed employment as 'Electrician (Helper)', initially with the petitioner and thereafter with respondent No.2/management No.1 (principal employer) since December 2012, last drawn salary Rs.8,252/- per month; the petitioner's written statement admitted employment only from 01.03.2015 to 13.06.2016. Management No.1 was proceeded ex-parte on 23.03.2019. Despite repeated opportunities, and after a successful recall application, the petitioner neither cross-examined the workman (right closed vide order dated 03.10.2023) nor led any evidence (evidence closed 24.11.2023), leaving the workman's affidavit version, including the demand notice (Ex. WW1/1), unrebutted. Holding that the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the Award, the Court dismissed the petition alongwith the pending application.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

% Date of Decision: 22.05.2025

¶3

W.P.(C) 5096/2025, CM APPL. 23330/2025

¶4

HST ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A.K. Bajpai, Advocate. Versus KAPIL & 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 28.01.2017. Further, a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was granted to the workman/respondent No.2 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 December 2012 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) 5096/2025 Page 1 of 3

¶11

Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Da te:2 7.05.2025 05:54:10

¶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 28.01.2017. 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 27.01.2017. 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 01.03.2015 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 December, 2012 to 28.01.2017 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) 5096/2025 Page 2 of 3

¶20

Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Da te:2 7.05.2025 05:54:10

¶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 28.01.2017, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that instead of directing for reinstatement, lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/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

W.P.(C) 5096/2025 Page 3 of 3

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Da te:2 7.05.2025 05:54:10

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Award dated 30.11.2023 of the Labour Court holding that services of respondent No.1 (workman) were terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management on 28.01.2017, granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- 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)', initially with petitioner/management No.2 and thereafter deployed with respondent No.2/management No.1 since December 2012, the latter being the principal employer.¶¶8
Prior proceeding
The workman claimed his last drawn salary was Rs.8,252/- per month.¶¶8
Prior proceeding
Per the workman's claim, petitioner/management No.2 terminated his services on 28.01.2017 when he asked for legal benefits including appointment letter, attendance card, pay slip and leave book, and did not pay wages for the period 01.11.2016 to 27.01.2017.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2/management No.1 chose not to appear 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 01.03.2015 to 13.06.2016, stating he was thereafter employed with a different management, and offered a job at a different location which the workman declined.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
On the pleadings, the Labour Court framed four issues (continuity of employment/240 days, legality of termination, voluntary abandonment, and relief).¶¶12
Prior proceeding
The workman filed evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the statement of claim; the demand notice was exhibited as Ex. WW1/1.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
Despite opportunities, and after a successful recall application, the petitioner again failed to cross-examine the workman and its right of cross-examination was closed vide order dated 03.10.2023; it also filed no affidavit of evidence.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
None appeared for the management and its evidence was closed on 24.11.2023.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
The Labour Court concluded the workman worked with the management for about two and a half years, that no notice or notice pay was placed on record prior to termination, that the workman's version remained unrebutted, decided Issue No.3 against the management, and awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 9% instead of reinstatement.¶¶21

Hst Enterprises v. Kapil & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hst Enterprises v. Kapil & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Hst Enterprises Vs Sunil & Anr.

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

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