Sunil Puri vs. D.K. Puri: Upholding the Impugned Award

In a recent legal battle before the Delhi High Court, the case of Sunil Puri vs. D.K. Puri has been brought to light. The Court deliberated on the termination of services and entitlements of Sunil Puri, son of D.K. Puri, in a work dispute with the management. Despite the petitioner’s claims, the Court found in favor of upholding the impugned award, emphasizing the importance of evidence and due process in such matters. Let’s delve deeper into this significant legal saga.

Facts

  • The petitioner workman was employed by the respondent management on 22 July, 1997 as a ‘Copy Operator’ with a last drawn monthly wage of Rs. 17,250.
  • The petitioner workman requested facilities such as an appointment letter, leave, salary slip, and travel expense from the respondent management on one occasion.
  • Subsequently, the respondent management terminated the services of the petitioner workman on 23 January, 2019.
  • The petitioner workman filed an industrial dispute before the Labour Court seeking reinstatement and back wages.
  • The impugned award dated 3 January, 2023, dismissed the petitioner’s claim, leading to the petitioner approaching the High Court to challenge the award.

Issue

  • The issue referred in the impugned award is whether the services of Sunil Puri, son of D. K. Puri, have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management
  • The question to be answered is what relief Sunil Puri is entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect

Arguments

  • The impugned award is challenged for being passed without considering witnesses and evidence on record.
  • The petitioner’s counsel argued that the award failed to take into account the facts of the case.
  • The respondent management admitted during cross-examination that the petitioner was working with them and no subsequent appointment letter was issued.
  • No domestic enquiry was conducted regarding the petitioner’s absence in January 2019.
  • The petitioner received Rs.4,83,563 from the management, but contends that they are entitled to more compensation.

Analysis

  • The workman admitted to receiving his full and final dues and left the job himself after attaining the age of superannuation.
  • The Court found that the workman’s admission during cross-examination corroborated the management’s contention in the written statement.
  • The workman failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his claim of illegal termination and lack of compensation.
  • The Court noted that the workman had received the final settlement amount of Rs.1,86,363 and all entitled facilities.
  • The Court emphasized the limited scope of intervention by a writ Court, requiring vigilance in such matters.
  • The workman had filed a statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer, leading to a reference as no appearance was made by the management.
  • The workman confirmed receiving Rs.1,83,363 via NEFT from the management as final settlement.
  • The workman’s Aadhar card indicated his date of birth as 22.01.1961.
  • Although the workman denied receiving a specific letter, he admitted to changing his address without informing the management.
  • Allegations of termination without notice, charge sheet, or due wages were refuted by the management, citing the workman’s repeated demands for certain facilities as the reason for termination.
  • The workman then issued a legal demand notice to the management seeking reinstatement with back wages.
  • The present case is deemed a misuse of process of law.
  • The petitioners failed to establish a valid case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
  • The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
  • The contentions presented by the petitioner are devoid of merit and are rejected.

Decision

  • The impugned award dated 3 January, 2023 is upheld
  • The award was passed by the learned ADJ, Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IV, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi
  • The case number for the award was LIR No 88/2020
  • The writ petition and pending applications are dismissed

Case Title: SUNIL PURI Vs. M/S. THAKKAR MANPOWER SERVICES PVT. LTD. (2024:DHC:3950)

Case Number: W.P.(C)-11678/2023

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *