* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No. 4189/1999
% Date of Decision: 02nd September, 2009
# SHRI ISHWAR DAYAL SHARMA
..... PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR.
.....RESPONDENTS
^ Through: Mr. Arvind Nayar for respondent No. 2. CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?NO S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge an industrial award dated 30.01.1999 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator in ID No. 80/1994 directing his reinstatement without back wages. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is restricted only to the non-grant of back wages to him during the period intervening between the date of his termination and the date of the impugned award. 2 The reason given by the Industrial Adjudicator for denying back wages to the petitioner was delay of five years in making the reference. The relevant portion of the impugned award in so far as it deals with the aspect of back wages is extracted below:-
"In the present case it is also admitted fact that no notice W.P.(C) No.4189/1999 Page 1 of 3 or notice pay or compensation pay was paid at the time of termination of the services of the workman. And as such the termination become illegal. However, it is correct that it is a delayed reference. The workman sent the demand notice only on 27.01.1991 whereas five years and in view of these circumstances, he is not entitled for back wages."
3 The petitioner in this case was appointed as a daily wager beldar on muster roll in the service of Delhi Jal Board w.e.f. 01.07.1985. He was not granted any further extension by respondent No. 2 after 30.06.1986. He sent a demand notice after five years on 27.01.1991 and asked for his reinstatement and back wages. Since this demand of the petitioner was not accepted by respondent No. 2, he raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court.
4 The petitioner had worked as daily wager for about one year. In terms of recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding right of daily wagers, they have no right even for their reinstatement. However, since the petitioner has already been reinstated in service by respondent No. 2, there is no dispute before the Court as far as directions for reinstatement is concerned. It may be noted that the petitioner was allegedly terminated by respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 01.07.1986. He raised a demand for his reinstatement after five years on 27.01.1991. The award was given by the Industrial Adjudicator after about 13 years of the alleged termination of the petitioner. On taking stock of all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages for the period intervening between the date of his alleged termination and the date of his reinstatement on the principal of 'No work, no pay'.
W.P.(C) No.4189/1999 Page 2 of 3 5 For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned award that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This writ petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
SEPTEMBER 02, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'
W.P.(C) No.4189/1999 Page 3 of 3