Balwan Singh v. M/S Harish Chandra (I) Ltd

$-3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of Decision: 25'^ October, 2016 +

W.P.(C) 9701/2016 & CM No.38833/2016 BALWAN SINGH Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocate with Petitioner in person. ^ H iJri f ^ ^ M/S HARISH^H^N^LA^I) LTD. J%, Respondent #

Tlirough:p:;^tNone. # %,f\ /M: i!"s^ L- :■ "N tf-" v" ift-s'.'i-i -< .--■i i'h COR AM* f VI' '\ \ HON'BLE MR.,TUSTICE N^MlwI^I ^ | 'i NAJMI W^IRI, J. (Oran 1 5 X .i X /. J1 r i IzTT^T T ■ I ■1 I CM No.38833/2016 (for exempti'driY ^ 'i " ',1 AllowecLsul^ect|^|iy^.^c^iohsI;f / The apphcation'stands disposed off. «.X: V' # W.P.(0 9701/2016 % %

¶1This petition iinpugnsThe!&AwaEdada;fSa 01.04.2016 passed in LIR No.4192/16 (Old LD. No.129/2010). It is the petitioner's case that he had not resigned from service, instead, his services were illegally terminated and he was not allowed to resume the duties. The impugned order records that the petitioner had challenged his termination from service by way of a legal notice dated 29.12.2009, which was replied to by the management vide Ex.MWl/5 dated 29.01.2010. Admittedly, the workman did not resume the W.P.(C) 9701/2016 . Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. 7-duties as suggested and invited by the management. Accordingly, the impugned order concluded that the claimant has voluntarily left the services of the management and held that the petitioner was not entitled to the relied claimed.

¶2The relevant paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the impugned order read as under:- "24. A perusal of the legal notice dated 6.01.2010 Mark B given on behalf of claimant shows that there is no such averment regarding issuance of opg^montbsnotice dt. 29.12.2009 by the management tgfthl'claim^t.^e|e^^^ averment in the Statement ^off Israihf' Rejdmfe by the claimant before?^this--hourt. ^^affidavit wdpfiledv by the claimant p'h Q3!C^.10 and evdhMriithC^said affi'daVlit there is no such/lvefmlnt. ThefeailefjvvShSther^mffid filed by the^' c^irhant on l^^O&^hii^^erein the e^rh^ enclosed a'copy of on^mdht^hpttGe dated 29.12.2oS9, withoi|t making any av^TSphf ^^^garding the said one in tVif> offirlawifi 'J V. i.'> « month^otice in the affidavit V •m .A, aS-. "i-. d a /■/

¶25The claimant has^claimf^ m^t'^sf^^i^es ^re terminated on 30.1%09 andi|therehfer^i^he=;.liate a B'egal Notice tm:ovi^]^s?hi'§^ Advocafb' "on 06#1.2dTtif^'oh the management^If4He' crtimant j^ad.vhe^^ serv.ed ,^with one month notice "dnr'29rfe09|3rit wasllbut^-hatufal for the claimant to have sfate^a^he'^Tactuih^.xtf^ of said Notice to him at the firsravailable^opportunity i.e. in the Legal Notice dated 06.01.2010 which he got issued to the management through his Advocate. Thereafter, Statement of Claim and Rejoinder was filed by the claimant but even these two documents were sans any pleadings to this effect that one month Notice was served upon the management to the claimant on 29.12.09. In fact, in the entire file, there is no averment by the claimant as to how the Notice dated

29.12.09 was served upon him by the hianagement. There is no pleading as to whether the said Notice was served to W.P.(C) 9701/2016 him by hand or by any other means like post etc. There is no pleadings that in case the said notice was served to him by hand, then who served that Notice to him. There are also no pleadings that as to what steps were taken by the claimant after receipt of said notice. No suggestion was given by the claimant to the Management witness that Management had also given the said one month notice Ex.WWI/6 to the claimant on 29.12.2009. In this background, it is hard to believe that any such Notice was served on the claimant by the management. y

¶26The management has claimedathat-^it was the claimant himself who abandofled his sepices pn 30tT2.09 when he visited the ofpef told the Manager H]R%eretltkt he dogsmot want to Continue, in the employment oTtlie managem^hf-aridThat he w6ulH» send his ^ •' tj -'Vs.-"-;:;'; resignati|in.^he said^^|i^y«dQpi^}managem§Qt %ds mention e^n'in the rep^||^^:||||^ managemei^to '^e claimant oh" 29.01.201 in response to Ihe Legal ;|^otice dated 06.01l2(^,l]0^g^f|issued by the claimant to the|management. It isf a|si islated in this reply dat|d

29.01 .ij) 10 (Ex.MWl/5);;that^fhe;-^laimant may be advised . to join the servic^4"aj:^^diatel^ ^et%cei^g this notibe. Receipt of this,Nbfi%sdi^s'"hdt;:bben)ddmed^^^ claiihWt. When the't|naha^emeht has' crearly stated .ia^>lefter#dated

29.01.2010'|E35icftfd25)'thatjthe.,.clain^^ shQuM,,c6me and join services ijm;^dMbl^;^|hfwas|^iiffi^ the claimant to have fdinedtLlss^serviedCass^according to the claimant, the management""hM'"Teraiinated his services. However, by not joining the services of the management and not giving any plausible explanation for not joining the services of the management in pursuance to their letter dated 29.01.2010, the only inference which can be drawn is that it was the claimant who voluntarily left the services of the management and that his services were never terminated by the management on 30.12.09, unlike claimed by the claimant. This issue is, therefore, decided against the claimant and in favour of the management." W:P. (C) 9701/2016

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the workman was prevented from resuming his duty. However, there is nothing on record to substantiate this claim nor was any evidence was led in this regard. In the circumstances, the Court is of the view that there is no reason for interference in the impugned Award dated 01.04.2016.

¶4The writ petition is without merits and accordingly is di^issed. «. If'S "f* .rm,. IMIWAZIRI) JUDGE I OCTOBER 25, sb # f S fK U u I (■ /if f; :} .vni -;«■ s.. ■ -fS '"-'-.m P 'r/X'?■' "i ■ H&I •?■' ,i^'. •■»%,. * .4-,,, •& ' '51 si WP.(C) 9701/2016