Delhi High Court Nafe Singh vs M/S. Sh. Ganga Ram Hospital

 
FREE EXCERPT

Delhi:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Judgment delivered on: August 28, 2015

%

W.P.(C) No. 2167/2004

RANBIR SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Pankaj Singh and Mr. Pradeep Kr.

Arya, Advocates

versus

M/S. SH. GANGA RAM HOSPITAL.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Alok Bhasin and Ms. Poonam Das,

Advocates.

AND

+

W.P. (C) No. 6922/2004

NAFE SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Pankaj Singh and Mr. Pradeep Kr.

Arya, Advocates

versus

M/S. SH. GANGA RAM HOSPITAL.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Alok Bhasin and Ms. Poonam Das,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

JUDGMENT

  1. S. MEHTA, J.

  1. The petitioners, i.e., Shri Ranbir Singh in W.P. (C) No. 2167/2004 and Shri Nafe Singh in W.P. (C) No. 6922/2004 have preferred the present Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned Awards dated 10.04.2003 and 08.04.2003 passed in I.D. no. 199/94 and I.D. no. 179/94 respectively by Presiding Officer, Labour Court - II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

  2. The brief facts are that the petitioner-workmen, Shri Ranbir Singh and Shri Nafe Singh, have alleged that they were employees of the respondent, i.e., Ganga Ram Hospital (hereinafter referred to as „management no. 1‟), and were later shown to be employees of M/s. Rama Security Services (hereinafter referred to „management no. 2‟) under the garb of an alleged sham and bogus agreement executed between management no. 1 and management no. 2. Subsequently, management no. 1 terminated their services w.e.f. 28.07.1992. The termination of the services of petitioner-workmen from the employment of management no. 1 is alleged to be a result of an oral general demand made by the petitioner-workmen to the management no. 1. The subsequent transfer of the petitioner-workmen from management no. 1 to management no. 2 was allegedly done through a sham and bogus agreement used by the management no.1 as a tool to escape the legal obligations under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further alleged that the petitioners are the employees of management no. 1 and non-giving of employment to them w.e.f. 28.07.1992 amounts to illegal termination of their employment for no fault on their part. The petitioners i.e., Shri Ranbir Singh and Shri Nafe Singh raised their issues before the competent authority and the same were referred by the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi for adjudication to the Labour Court vide notification no. F.24. (1476)/93-Lab./12046-52 and notification no. F.24 (1474)/93-Lab./12032-38 respectively, dated 30.03.1994, which are as under:

    "Whether the services of Sh. Ranbir Singh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief, is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

    Whether the services of Sh. Nafe Singh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief, is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?

    The petitioners in their statement of claim pray that they be reinstated w.e.f. 28.07.1992 with continuity in service and full back-wages. The management no. 1 in its written statement had denied that the management no. 1 had ever given any employment to the petitioners and asserted that there was no employer-employee relationship at any point of time between the management no. 1 and the petitioners. It is stated that the management no. 2, i.e., M/s. Rama Security Services was providing security services to management no. 1, i.e., Ganga Ram Hospital till 22.07.1992. The security guards were deployed by M/s. Rama Security Services alone. The aforesaid agreement was terminated w.e.f. 23.07.1992. The contract between management no. 1 and management no. 2 was an independent contract. It is further alleged that management no. 2, i.e., M/s. Rama Security Services was paying wages to its employees including the petitioners and also exercised supervision and control over them and thereafter, the petitioners were gainfully employed elsewhere. M/s. Rama Security Services too had filed written statement and stated that the management no. 2, i.e., M/s. Rama Security Service had closed down their business on 23.07.1992 and the same was informed to the petitioner-workmen vide notice dated 24.06.1992 and the reference made by the government is incompetent. Management no. 2 prays for dismissal of claim of the petitioners, rejoinder to written statement filed, and reaffirm the averments made to the statement of claim.

    Issues in both the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL