Sh. Rohit Panjwani, v. M/S Bses Rajdhani Power Limited and Ors

SANJEEV NARULA, J. SEPTEMBER 18, 2023 B.S. Rohella

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 18.09.2023 % SH. ROHIT PANJWANI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, Advocate. versus M/S BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Mr. Vikas Mehta & Mr. Ishaan Lamba, Advocates for respondents No.1 & 2. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ. (ORAL) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is arising out of judgment dated 18.04.2023 passed in W.P.(C.) No. 4831/2023, by which the learned Single Judge has affirmed the Award dated 28.10.2022 passed by the Labour Court in LID No.583/2016. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant/ workman was appointed as Field Executive on 12.01.2004 by M/s Safeguards Manpower Consultants and he was directed to work with M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.(BSES-RPL), w.e.f. 13.01.2004 to 30.09.2006. 3. The facts further reveal that the name of the company M/s Safeguards Manpower Consultants was subsequently changed to M/s Safeguards Human Resourcing Pvt. Ltd. and the workman continued to work with the employer as he was appointed by M/s Safeguards Human Resourcing Pvt. Ltd. though he was offering his services at BSES-RPL. He continued to work up to 28.06.2013 and his services were terminated – as stated by the workman, on 28.06.2013. 4. Against his discontinuance, the workman took shelter under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) and approached the Labour Court. The following issues were framed by the Labour Court: "i. Whether there existed any relationship of employer and employee between the management No. 1 and 2, and workman? OPW ii. Whether statement of claim filed by the workman under Section 2 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against management No. 4 is no maintainable inasmuch as management No. 4 was not a party to the conciliation proceedings under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If so, to what effect? OPM4. iii. Whether statement of claim filed by the workman against management No. 4 is no maintainable inasmuch as workman was not in the employment of management No. 4 in the year preceding the date of alleged termination of his services as pleaded in the statement of claim? OPM4. iv. Whether the workman worked with the management(s) and his services were terminated illegally/unjustifiably by the management(s) in terms of averments made in the statement of claim? If so, to what relief, and against which management, workman is entitled ? OPW v. Relief." 5. The Labour Court has finally passed an Award dated 28.10.2022 in LID No.583/2016 holding that the workman has resigned from the service of the Management voluntarily and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief as he has not been terminated illegally & unjustifiably – as stated by the workman. 6. The workman – being aggrieved by the Award dated 28.10.2022, has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No. 4831/2023, and the finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge. 7. The learned Single Judge has held that the workman did resign on 20.09.2013 and he made a bald plea that he was forced to submit his resignation on 20.09.2013 without any substance and without there being any supporting evidence. Learned Single Judge has also arrived at a conclusion that immediately after submitting his resignation, the workman applied for release of his provident fund and did not raise any grievance for about four months and it was only on 27.01.2014, that he made a request for withdrawal of his resignation, which request was rejected by the employer. The learned Single Judge – after referring to the Award, in paragraphs 5 to 8 of the impugned judgment, has held as under: "5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and peruse the record, I find no merit in the Petitioner's plea. I am unable to accept the Petitioner's bald plea that he was forced to sub