Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre of Ch Ashi Ram Batra Public Charitable Trust v. Biswambar Nayak

ORDER 0/o

27.04.2012

¶1These two cross appeals are preferred impugning the order dated

1.2.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 3562/2011 which was filed by the Batra Hospital of Medical Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the Management) questioning the order dated 6.4.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court in favour of the workman namely Bishwamber Nayak.

¶2The workman was employed with the Management. His services were terminated and challenging the termination, he approached the appropriate government which referred the matter to the Labour Comi for adjudication. In the reply filed by the Management, it is inter alia pleaded that Bishwamber Nayak is not a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 194 7 and therefore the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the industrial dispute.

¶3While the proceedings were still pending, the workman moved a petition under Section 1 0( 4 A) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the learned Labour Court allowed the said application directing the Management to pay him 75% of the last drawn salary of Rs.1 0854 during the pendency of / the claim petition, from the date of termination of his service. Challenging this order the Management had preferred the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge has maintained the order of interim relief but at the same time reduced the amount to 50% of the last drawn salary. The workman is aggrieved by this reduction and that is the reason for challenging the order.

¶4Insofar as Management is concerned, it feels prejudiced as according to the Management the order of interim relief is bad as there was substantial evidence produced before the learned Labour Court to the effect that Biswambar Nayak was not a 'workman'. The position taken by the Management is that Biswamber Nayak was working as an officer and discharging the managerial /administrative duties such as granting increments to other staff, granting extension, issuing termination and even appointment letters. The workman, on the other hand, had submitted certain documents allegedly executed by the Management itself as per which he was performing only clerical duties. The learned Labour Court while passing the impugned order took a prima facie view that there is a possibility that he was a workman and on that basis proceeded to discuss the merits of the case.

¶5At this stage the Labour Court was required to take only a prima facie view and after going through the order of the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge, we do not find any infirmity in the approach of the learned Labour Court. We may also record that the Labour Court has tried to balance the equities by observing that it would effective steps for concluding the proceedings expeditiously for the disposal of the case at t"' the earliest and within a period of one year. It is also observed that this order can be revised if the workman does not cooperate in the early disposal of the case or takes adjournment without sufficient cause or gets a gainful employment elsewhere.

¶6We are informed that the workman has already completed the evidence and the Management has also filed the evidence by way of ' Affidavits and the case is at the stage of cross examination of the \.) Management witnesses. The case is now coming for hearing on 4 1h July, 2012. Since the Labour Court itself had fixed the limit of one year for itself and one year has already passed, we are confident that the Labour Court would decide the matter by listing the matter at short intervals so that the decision is rendered in the month of July/August. For this purpose, we direct that no adjournment shall be taken on the next date of hearing by any of the parties which would mean that witnesses shall be produced before the Labour Court and same would be cross examined by the workman. Attempt shall be made by the Labour Court to see that the evidence is concluded on that day. The Labour Court shall fix the case for arguments within few days thereafter and hear the arguments. In this manner, when the case would be concluded within a couple of months, we see no reason to interfere with the orders passed.

¶7Insofar as appeal of the workman is concerned, it would be sufficient to say that the Labour Court did not give any reason as to why it was giving interim relief to the extent of payment of75% of the last drawn salary. The learned Single Judge has reduced the same to 50% of the wages and having regard to the circumstances of the case, we feel that this order of the learned Single Judge need not be interfered with more particularly when the matter before the Labour Court itself would be concluded within few months.

¶8We accordingly dismiss both these appeals. APRIL27, 2012/skb ACTING (RAJIV SAHAI END LAW) JUDGE I * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶34+ o;o BIS W AMBAR NAY AK Through: versus ..... Appellant In-person BATRA HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE ..... Respondent Mr. Umesh Sharma, Adv. Through: CORAM: THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLA W ORDER

22.05.2012 RP 336/2012

¶1The Labour Court had passed orders granting interim relief to the workman by granting 75% of the last drawn salary during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge, while maintaining the order, reduced the interim relief to the extent of 50% of the y wages stating that no reasons were given by the Labour Court to grant relief to the extent of payment of 75% of the last drawn salary. Both the management and the workman filed appeal thereagainst and by our order dated 27.04.2012, both the appeals were dismissed thereby maintaining the order of the learned Single Judge. The workman has filed this review petition. During the course of arguments, the workman admits that the Labour CoUli had not given any reasons while granting 7 5% of the wages as interim relief, but his submission is that even the learned Single Judge had not given any reasons while reducing the same to 50%. Let it be recorded that the Labour Court has the power to grant the interim relief and when the prima facie case is made out by the workman for LPA 13712012 Pg.1 of2 • , such a relief, orders are passed. The Labour Court itself referred to certain judgments in this behalf pointing out that such a right is in the nature of receiving subsistence allowance. When that is the aspect to be kept into account, normally in case of a suspended employee, the subsistence allowance are 50%. It is for this reason we maintain the order of the learned Single Judge granting interim relief to the extent of 50% of wages. In case the proceedings linger on before the Labour Court and fault thereof is attributed to the management, it would always be open to the workman to seek enhancement of interim relief .

¶2With these observations, review petition is disposed of. MAY 22,2012 pk Fr ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J Pgl of2 -

& 13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BISW AMBAR NAY AK ..... Appellant Through: In person. Versus BATRA HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vineet malhotra, Advocate with Mr. R.M. Tatia, Amit Bhardwaj, Advocates. AND + LPA 218/2012 & CM 5118/2012 (stay), 7319/2012 (direction) BATRA HOSPITAL & MECICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF CH ASHI RAM BATRA PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST Through: Versus ..... Appellant Mr. Vineet malhotra, Advocate with Mr. R.M. Tatia, Amit Bhardwaj, Advocates. BISW AMBAR NAY AK ..... Respondent Through: In person. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI END LAW