M/S NUTRI SHINE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. vs SHRI SHIV RAM AND ORS.

2024-11-14 Information

$~70
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 14.11.2024
+ W.P.(C) 15806/2024
M/S NUTRI SHINE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Awadesh Kumar, Advocate.

versus

SHRI SHIV RAM AND ORS. …..Respondents
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Upadhayay, Panel Counsel for R-4/GNCTD. (Notice not issued)

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
CM APPL. 66381/2024 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM APPL. 66382/2024 (for condonation of delay of 466 days in refiling)
2. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed and delay in re-filing the appeal after removal of defects is condoned.
W.P.(C) 15806/2024 & CM APPL. 66380/2024 (stay)
3. The petitioner management has assailed order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Competent Authority under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, I find no reason to even issue notice of this petition.

4. As reflected from record, the present respondents no.1-3 along with one more workman (collectively referred to as the workmen) filed a claim petition before the Competent Authority under Section 21 of the Act, pleading that despite their having performed duties with full dedication and honesty, the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the management) did not pay their wages, as tabulated in paragraph 2 of the impugned order. The workmen further pleaded that the management was not granting the facilities in accordance with law and neither any appointment letter nor identity card were issued to them; that at the time of joining services, the management obtained their signatures on blank vouchers and letter heads; that the management took a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from each of them towards security deposit, assuring to return the same at the time of leaving their job, but they were unceremoniously removed from service, so they filed complaint dated 04.04.2017 before the Labour Office, West District. During the hearing before the Labour Inspector, the management did not pay the earned wages and security money, as would appear from report dated 30.06.2017 of the Labour Inspector. With these pleadings, the workmen sought directions from the Competent Authority for payment of their earned wages.

5. On the basis of summons served, the management appeared before the Competent Authority on 11.09.2019 and filed replies to respond to the claim of each of the workmen. In their reply the management pleaded that the workmen had been engaged as trainee for marketing through the expert trainers and were sent in the field with cosmetic items for sale with individual targets on 20% commission basis. The management in their reply denied having taken signatures of any of the workmen on blank papers or having taken Rs. 5,000/- each towards security deposit and pleaded that the workmen had signed the contracts with the management after understanding the contents thereof. It was further pleaded by the management that some of the workmen have taken away the entrusted cosmetic items meant for sale and they did not return the same. The management pleaded that the workmen have abandoned the services and there are no pending dues, so the claim petitions are liable to be dismissed.

6. The workmen filed rejoinders, reiterating their claim contents.

7. After framing two issues viz. entitlement of the workmen for wages and the relief to be granted, the Competent Authority carried out trial in which the workmen testified on oath the contents of their claims and tendered in evidence the necessary documents as Ex. WW1/1-5. Despite repeated adjournments, the management did not cross examine any of the workmen, so vide order dated 24.12.2019, their right to cross examine the workmen was closed and subsequently their application for recall of the workmen also was rejected. The management also opted not to lead any evidence, so their evidence was closed vide order dated 06.03.2020. Subsequent to lifting of the Covid lockdown, further proceedings were conducted by the Competent Authority and vide order dated 12.10.2020, summons were issued to the management but none appeared on their behalf.

8. It is under these circumstances that after traversing through record, the Competent Authority passed the impugned order holding the management liable to pay unpaid salary and compensation to the present respondents no.1-3.

9. Learned counsel for management argues that respondents no.1-3 had voluntarily abandoned their job, so they are not entitled to any relief. No other argument has been advanced.

10. But as reflected from above quoted record, it is the management which opted to neither cross examine any of the respondents no.1-3 nor led any evidence to establish that respondents no. 1-3 had abandoned their job. That being so, on the basis of unchallenged evidence as mentioned above, the Competent Authority has rightly passed the impugned order. I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same is upheld and the present petition is dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.

GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 14, 2024/ry

W.P.(C) 15806/2024 Page 1 of 4 pages