Dismissed

M/S C I M M Co. Birla Ltd. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC29 Jan 2019CW/4780/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition rejecting the grounds to set aside the Labour Court's award establishing an employment relationship. The court held that the Labor Court examined evidence properly and no legal perversity existed. Petitioner was directed to pay dues to heirs within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to implement award and release dues to legal heirs within three months; no reinstatement liable as workman died.

M/S C I M M Co. Birla Ltd. Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 4780/1999

¶3

M/s C I M M Co Birla Ltd

----Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Anita Agarwal with Mr.Laxmi Kant For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rahul Kamwar

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

29/01/2019

¶12

This court vide order dated 20.7.2017 had dismissed this writ petition taking into consideration that the amount has already been paid to the respondent-workman which was lateron recalled vide order dated 23.1.2019 in lieu of the fact that the amount has not been paid but was lying with the Payment of Wages Authority. Thus a wrong noting had crept in the order and same was therefore recalled.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the matter has been rendered academic while the counsel submits that the case ought to be decided on merits too.

¶14

While this court had not recalled the earlier order on merits but only because of wrong noting in the order, still in the interest of justice, this court heard the counsel for the petitioner on merits.

¶15

The petitioner has assailed the award dated 7.10.1998

¶16

[CW-4780/1999]

¶17

(2 of 6)

¶18

whereby a reference was answered in favour of the respondentworkman Kishan Lal. The respondent workman Kishan Lal has expired during the pendency of this proceeding and the award was not stayed by this court and an application was moved by the deceased workman to the Payment of Wages Authority which passed the order dated 5.4.2006 directing to pay amount of Rs.2,40,454/- in lieu of the wages to the concerned workman for the period from 1.1.1984 to 31.5.1999.

¶19

The petitioner company preferred another writ petition being SBCW Pet. No.6809/2006 against the said order of the Authority which was rejected by this court vide order dated 2.3.2007 allowing the petitioner to file an appeal against the authority concerned. It has been informed that the petitioner did not file any appeal against the award passed by the Payment of Wages Authority. When the amount was not paid to the workman, he preferred an execution application wherein orders were passed to attach the Bank account of the petitioner and recover the said amount. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.2,40,454/- was said to have been recovered and is lying with the Payment of Wages Authority.

¶20

The petitioner-company also challenged the order of attachment before this court in SBCW Pet. No.10415/2009 which was dismissed by this court vide order dated 18.12.2013 holding that the matter has been rendered academic.

¶21

While this court in the aforesaid facts is of the view that the writ petition has been rendered academic, however on the insistance of counsel for the petitioner, I have examined the order

¶22

[CW-4780/1999]

¶23

(3 of 6)

¶24

passed by the Judge, Labour Court dated 7.10.1998 whereby the award was passed in favour of deceased workman. The argument raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the Judge, Labour Court has failed to appreciate the evidence which had come on record on behalf of the petitioner to the fact that the deceased workman was not appointed by them but was only a person who was referred for assistance to the persons who were going and residing in the Guest House and thus there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent-workman.

¶25

The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the documentary evidence which had been brought on record by the workman was not of such a nature which could have been relied upon for the purpose of holding the workman to be an employee of the petitioner-company. The counsel has relied upon the document Ex.W-3, a letter issued by the Manager of the Guest House addressed to one Sh.Kishan Lal, and submits that the said letter addressed to Kishan Lal was referring to another workman cook who was engaged by the petitioner in permanent capacity. It is submitted that the Judge, Labour Court has wrongly read the said letter to be addressed to the workman-claimant. The counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Balwant Rai Saluja and anr. Vs. AIR India Limited and ors. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 407 and submits that the relationship of employer and employee was not made out from the facts as have come on record and the award passed by the Judge, Labour Court be set aside.

¶26

[CW-4780/1999]

¶27

(4 of 6)

¶28

I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and looked into the documents which were relied upon by the Judge, Labour Court.

¶29

The Judgment cited above by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Balwant Rai Saluja (supra) would not apply to the fact of present case as there the issue involved was with regard to whether the Management assigned to a particular canteen by the Air India Limited, was an independent unit or with under the Air India Limited, and taking into consideration the facts therein the Apex Court found that Air India Limited was not having deep and pervasive control on the company namely HCL, and the employees of the HCL would not be employees of Air India Limited. Presently the evidence is otherwise and there is no third party which could be said to have engaged the respondent-workman as the pay-slips have been admittedly issued by the petitioner from their suspense allowance account.

¶30

From the perusal of the award passed by the Judge, Labour Court, it is noticed that the workman has produced the documents Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-17 which are in the nature of notices, application form with the noting from the official of petitioner-company and also one letter addressed by the Manager of the company to one Kishan Lal. There are also pay-slips and also the documents to prove that the amount was being released by the petitioner from their suspense allowance. All the said documents have been referred to and examined and discussed by the Judge, Labour Court and he has reached to the conclusion after examining the evidence put forward by the petitioner that so far as the workman

¶31

[CW-4780/1999]

¶32

(5 of 6)

¶33

is concerned, he was working on temporary basis at Company’s guest house which was under the control of company. The evidence put forward by the petitioner has not been accepted to be truthful by the Judge, Labour Court after discussing the crossexamination conducted thereto. The case of the workman could not be rebutted and after examining the documents and evidences, the Judge, Labour Court has reached to the conclusion that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the workman and the petitioner-company and payment was made by the petitioner to the workman. Having reached to said conclusion, the award has been passed.

¶34

This court has a limited scope in writ jurisdiction in relation to examining the award passed by the Judge, Labour Court. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, this court cannot act as an Appellate Forum and would not re-examine or re-appreciate the evidence which has been recorded by the Judge, Labour Court. It would be a different case altogether if documents which were produced have not been considered. It is thus only in cases where there is a legal perversity which may have crept in the award that this court would interfere or where there is an order or award passed by the court or the Tribunal without jurisdiction.

¶35

Having noticed the aforesaid, this court is satisfied that the Judge, Labour Court has examined and given its finding relating to each and every document and evidence which have come on record. Thus it cannot be said that there was any perversity which has crept in the award passed by the Judge, Labour Court and this

¶36

[CW-4780/1999]

¶37

(6 of 6)

¶38

court does not find any reason to warrant interference with the award dated 7.10.1990 on merits.

¶39

It is noticed that the deceased workman has already been awarded back wages by the Payment of Wages Authority which are lying with it after having been recovered from the petitioner’s account. After 7.10.1998 that is the date when the award was passed, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have reinstated the workman as there was no interim order passed by this court. However, it has come on record that the petitioner did not reinstate the workman and thus the Legal Representatives of the workman would be, therefore, entitled for the benefit of award. The petitioner would be thus required to implement and release the dues which the deceased workman would have been entitled as per award to his legal heirs. The same would be implemented within a period of three months henceforth.

¶40

Accordingly, in view of above, writ petition is dismissed.

¶41

Sandeep/-1

M/S C I M M Co. Birla Ltd. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S C I M M Co. Birla Ltd. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mustak Khan Head Constable (Driver) No 10, Son of Shri Mohd. Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Govind Narayan Bairwa S/O Late Shri Rampal Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandan Sharma S/O Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Jc Verma Vs State and Ors.

Mubina Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Dr Babu Lal Meena Vs State Medical and Healthanr