Rajyashree Bhartia vs The Presiding Officer and Others

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—This intra court appeal has been filed by the employer (Smt. Rajyashree Bhartia) under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 9.4.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 8396 of 2010) filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 17.9.2009 passed by the labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") in favour of the workman-respondent No. 4 herein has been dismissed. The labour Court vide the said order allowed the application of the respondent-workman filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act for non payment of the backwages. As per the order dated 17.9.2009, the respondent-workman is to be paid a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- as backwages alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of award till final payment in his favour.

While challenging the said order before the learned Single Judge, the appellant raised the question that at the time of the termination of the service of the workman, respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 were in control of the Factory, therefore, as per the arbitration award between the appellant and respondents No. 2, 3 and 5, those respondents are liable to pay the said amount of backwages to the respondent-workman. The learned Single Judge rejected the said contention while observing as under:

"In the present case, there is no denying the fact that as per Form No. 2 filled up under the Factories Act, 1948 in the year 1991, the proprietorship of the factory M/s. Rajyashree Textiles continued to be with the petitioner as per Clause 8 (wrongly mentioned as Clause 9) and it specifically mentioned her name. Though the occupier of the said factory namely M/s. Rajyashree Textiles is Sh. N.P. Garodia and might be having control of the factory under section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948 but it is to be noticed that the Labour Court was well justified in holding that being a sole proprietor nothing had been brought on record that the firm had been dissolved. The workman, thus, was well justified in seeking the said amount from the petitioner in his application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The arbitration award dated 3.10.1983 showed the control of the said unit namely M/s. Rajyashree Textiles and M/s. New India Textiles was always with the first group, namely, Hariparsad Lohia, Naryan Prasad Garodia, Om Parkash Bhartia, Haricharan Garodia and Bal Krishan Garodia. As per the award which was made rule of Court on 21.9.1984, the first group was already running the said units at their own risk and they were to keep the second group fully indemnified and harmless in all respects since 27.4.1980. The termination was on 6.7.1992 and, therefore, the second group was not liable for the act of the first group. However, they were to be indemnified by the second group for all Court cases which were presently pending or may be filed in future."

Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. Before us also similar pleas as raised before the learned Single Judge have been raised.

We have considered the submissions and find that they do not merit acceptance.

The facts of the case speak for themselves. Respondent-workman who was working as Weaver with the firm since the year 1963 was illegally transferred to M/s. Rajyashree Textiles without his consent. Thereafter, his services were terminated which led to raising an industrial dispute by him. The matter was referred to the labour Court and vide award dated 10.6.1999, the labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service and full back wages. Since as per the directions of the labour Court, the back wages were not paid, respondent-workman was forced to approach the labour Court again, this time through an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act claiming the back wages already awarded to him. The matter remained pending before the labour Court for about 10 years. In the interregnum, no payment was made. Finally through order dated 17.9.2009, the labour Court directed the appellant to pay to the respondent-workman an amount of Rs. 105000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till final payment alongwith costs assessed at Rs. 2000/-. Even after the passing of the above order, no payment was released to the workman as the appellant preferred to challenge the order dated 17.9.2009 through a writ petition filed before this Court i.e. CWP No. 8396 of 2010. The matter was taken up before a learned Single Judge of this Court before whom the appellant submitted that there was an arbitration agreement under which she was not liable and it was respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 who were to make payment to the respondent-workman. The arbitration award was also referred to before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge went through the entire matter and dismissed the writ petition holding that it is the appellant who was liable to pay the awarded amount to the respondent-workman and as per the arbitration award, the amount so paid by her were to be reimbursed/indemnified to her by respondents No. 2, 3 and 5.

Further through an award dated 10.6.1999, the respondent-workman had been held entitled to the amount in question. Even after passage of about 15 years, he has not received a penny out of the awarded amount. Attempting to secure the awarded amount, he had to initially approach the labour Court and then defend the writ petition filed by the appellant before this Court. The reliance of the appellant on the arbitration award is also misconceived. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the award inter se the appellant and respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 was only to the effect that if the appellant incurs any liability then the same is to be reimbursed/indemnified by respondents No. 2, 3 and 5. The said liberty has been rightly granted by the learned Singe Judge to the appellant as and when such amount is paid by her to the respondent-workman. In any case that is an internal matter between the appellant and respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 and the respondent-workman is not to made to suffer on account of the same. Further it is the admitted position that in the records filed under the Labour Laws, it is the appellant who was shown as proprietor of the concern in which the respondent-workman was working at the time of termination and reinstatement of his services. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed. This Court is pained to see a poor workman being dragged through different Courts at the hands of the appellant for the last about 15 years without being paid a single penny. Therefore, costs are quantified at Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid by the appellant to respondent-workman.