Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1467 (DEL)

RAJ KUMARI v. MGT. OF M/S. S. C. E. H.

2007-07-25

HIMA KOHLI

body2007
HIMA KOHLI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order of the Labour Court by which the application of the petitioner/claimant filed under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was partly allowed. In the said application, the petitioner made a claim of Rs. 13,899. 00 from the respondent/management on the following basis : ? (a) Wages for the month of May, per month. ???????????????????????? Rs . ? 9,003. 00 (b) ? Night Duly Allowance @ Rs. 204. 00 June and July, 1991 @ Rs. 3,001. 00 April to July, 1991 ). ????????????? Rs . ? 4,896. 00 Total : ??????????????????????????? Rs . 13,899. 00 per night duly (for the month of ( 2 ) VIDE the impugned order, the Labour Court held that the petitioner/claimant was entitled to only a sum of Rs. 9,003. 00 from the respondent/management and that she had no existing right to claim any Night Duty allowance from the respondent/management @ Rs. 204. 00 per night as no rules/regulations to the said effect had been placed on the record. ( 3 ) IN the present proceedings, vide order dated 19th November, 2003, the scope of the present writ petition was confined to the question as to whether any interest could be granted to the petitioner under Section 33-C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that the Labour Court ought to have granted interest to be paid to the petitioner in the facts of the present case, particularly, when the salaries of the petitioner were illegally withheld by the respondent/management. ( 5 ) IN reply, the President of the respondent/management, who appears present in person, has disputed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. He states that the salaries of the petitioner could not be released to her as she had been appointed as a Public Health Nurse on an ad hoc basis subject to production of the relevant certificates before the Director for showing that she possessed the requisite qualifications. However, as the petitioner failed to produce the necessary certificate, her services on ad hoc basis ceased to exist. It is further submitted that since the petitioner failed produce the relevant certificate so as to prove her qualification, the management was in a dilemma about the quantum of salaries to be paid to her. However, as the petitioner failed to produce the necessary certificate, her services on ad hoc basis ceased to exist. It is further submitted that since the petitioner failed produce the relevant certificate so as to prove her qualification, the management was in a dilemma about the quantum of salaries to be paid to her. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the parties, the Labour Court arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner had an existing right to claim the salaries in the post of public Health Nurse till the period she had worked in the said capacity. However, it was recorded that the issue as to whether the petitioner was qualified for the post of Public Health Nurse or not was the subject matter of a separate dispute which was stated to be pending before the Industrial adjudicator. Thus, without prejudice to the contention of the respondent/management regarding the fitness and qualification of the petitioner to the post of Public Health Nurse, it was held that the petitioner had an existing right and was entitled to the salaries for the period during which she rendered services as Public Health Nurse and the contention of the respondent/management was accepted that her salaries could not be released for the reason that she had not submitted the requisite certificate. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the respondent and perused the impugned award, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned award which deserves interference by this Court. The award is well reasoned and the conclusions arrived therein are based on the material placed on the record. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, it may be noted that after notice was issued in the writ petition, the respondent filed a reply and in para 12 thereof made a specific averment that pursuant to the impugned award, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No. 743649 dated 6th December, 2003 drawn on State Bank of India, Clock tower, Subzi Mandi, Delhi in the sum of Rs. 9,003/- in favour of the petitioner. But, no proof of receipt or encashment of cheque by the petitioner was given in the reply. In the rejoinder, particularly to the said para, the petitioner categorically denied having received any such cheque and averred that till the date of filing of the rejoinder. e. till May, 2005, the petitioner had not received the aforesaid amount. But, no proof of receipt or encashment of cheque by the petitioner was given in the reply. In the rejoinder, particularly to the said para, the petitioner categorically denied having received any such cheque and averred that till the date of filing of the rejoinder. e. till May, 2005, the petitioner had not received the aforesaid amount. ( 9 ) IN the course of arguments, the aforesaid contention was reiterated on behalf of the respondent. On the last date of hearing, an adjournment was sought to produce a proof of encashment of the said cheque and the respondent was accommodated. Today, the respondent has handed over a certificate issued by the concerned bank, which states that the said cheque had not been encashed as per the records of the bank. On inquiry, the respondent states that the cheque in question was sent by ordinary process and that there is no proof of dispatch or receipt of the said cheque by the petitioner. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid position, it is quite apparent that the respondent has tried to mislead this Court and has made false averments in the reply to the writ petition. On directions, the amount in question. e. Rs. 9,003. 00 has been tendered in cash to the petitioner, through counsel in the court. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the conduct of the respondent, this Court deems it just, fit and appropriate to impose costs on the respondent/ management, for making false averments on record and trying to mislead the court. The respondent shall pay Rs. 10,000. 00 as costs to the petitioner within two weeks. Further, the respondent is directed to pay the petitioner interest on the amount of Rs. 9,003. 00 @ 9% per annum w. e. f. 6th december, 2003, the purported date of issuance of the cheque, till date, within two weeks. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.