AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against award dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Authority under the Delhi Shops & Establishment Act, 1954/ Deputy Labour Commissioner(West District). Vide the aforesaid award, the Authority had allowed the claim petitions and directed the petitioner herein to deposit the awarded amounts in the names of the said five claimants before the Authority within a period of 30 days.
Upon filing of the present petition before this Court, an application, being CM Appl. 58973/2923, was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking stay of the recovery proceedings, whereupon, vide order dated 10.11.2023, this Court directed that the entire amount as directed in the impugned award be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court. As per the office noting, the petitioner deposited Rs.3,89,000/- vide DD No.381199 dated 29.11.2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner assails the impugned award primarily on the ground that the Authority has erred in passing the impugned order despite the claimants/respondents failed to prove the employer/employee relationship between the parties.
Notably, the claimants, who are five in number, approached the Authority under Section 21 of the Delhi Shops & Establishments Act, 1954 thereby claiming non-payment of earned wages for the claim period. The details of the claims, including the claim period as well as monthly wages as recorded by the Authority, are extracted below:
| S.N o. | Name and Fathers name | Post | Period | Monthly wages (Rs.) | Total pending wages (Rs.) |
| 1. | Sh. Sanjeev Prasad S/o Sh. Vedeshwari Gupta | Helper | 01.10.2018 to 15.01.2019 | Rs.12,000/- | 42,000/- |
| 2. | Sh. Jagdish S/o Sh. Har Charan | Mistri | 01.10.2018 to 15.01.2019 | Rs.18,000/- | 63,000/- |
| 3. | Sh Aman S/o Vijay Pratap | Mistri | 01.10.2018 to 15.01.2019 | Rs.18,000/- | 63,000/- |
| 4. | Sh Akhilesh S/o Sh. Harvu Ram | Mistri | 01.10.2018 to 15.01.2019 | Rs.18,000/- | 63,000/- |
| 5. | Sh Umesh S/o Sh Hari Lal | Helper | 01.10.2018 to 15.01.2019 | Rs.12,000/- | 42,000/- |
A perusal of the record reveals that due opportunity was granted to the petitioner to contest the claims. Notice was issued to the petitioner, pursuant to which one Ishan Nijhawan, the proprietor of the petitioner/establishment, appeared before the Authority on 14.01.2020. The claim applications were supplied to him, however, neither any reply was filed nor anyone appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Consequently, vide order dated 06.03.2020, the respondent in the claim petition (petitioner herein) was proceeded ex parte. All the claimants, thereafter, filed their evidence by way of affidavits reiterating that they were employed with the petitioner and that their respective wages were not paid. It is pertinent to note that prior to filing of the claim application, the claimants had issues demand notices dated 27.09.2019 to the petitioner through registered AD/speed post, however, no response thereto was given by the petitioner. The claim applications were annexed with the affidavits, postal receipts as well as documentary evidence. The evidence also included a bearer cheque No.287520 dated 28.02.2018 for Rs.43,500/- stated to have been issued by the petitioner towards payment of earlier wages. In the aforesaid backdrop, the contention of the petitioner that the claimants failed to prove the employer/employee relation is meritless as not only were the claims made by the workmen in the claim applications never denied, but even the demand notices sent through registered AD/speed post were also not responded to. The petitioner, therefore, has repeatedly failed to deny employer/employee relationship.
It is settled law that the challenge to the order passed by the Authority is not to be treated like an appeal. The Division Bench of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Ex Sub(RT) Surjeet Singh in W.P.(C) 16298/2024 while defining the limited scope of interference took note of the following observations of Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v K.S. Radhakrishnan1:
“7.The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or properly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity, be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v Syed Ahmad Ishaque2, Nagandra Nath Bora v Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam 3and Kaushalya Devi v Bachittar Singh4.
Considering the aforesaid legal position and in view of the demand notices, the claims made in the claim application as well as evidence by way of affidavits, all of which were never denied by the petitioner, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order warrants no interference.
Accordingly, the petition as well as pending application is dismissed. The amounts deposited by the petitioner be released to the claimants proportionately. For this purpose, the matter be listed before the Joint Registrar on 02.02.2026, subject to verification.