*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13957/2004
% Date of decision: 19th May, 2010
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.C. Sen, Advocate
Versus
RAM KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers 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 NO
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner NDMC by this writ petition impugns the award dated 9th January, 2004 of the Labour Court, holding the respondent workman to be an employee of the petitioner NDMC and further holding his services to have been terminated without compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. The termination of the employment of the respondent workman was thus held to be bad. However, since the respondent workman was found to have failed to show appointment to a particular post on which he could be reinstated, the Labour Court granted the relief only of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of lumpsum compensation to the W.P.(C)13957/2004 Page 1 of 4 respondent workman. The respondent workman has not challenged the award.
2. It was the case of the respondent workman before the Labour Court that he was appointed as a Heavy Motor Vehicle Driver with the petitioner NDMC at a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month with effect from 1st November, 1994 and continued to so work for the petitioner NDMC till 1st February, 1997 when his services were terminated without giving any reason and he was simply asked not to come on duty from the next day. The petitioner NDMC contested the said claim by contending that the respondent workman was not employed but was engaged on the basis of a verbal contract and was obliged to complete 50 trips in a month to get Rs.2,500/- per month at the rate of Rs.40/- per trip and with an incentive at the rate of Rs.100/- per trip for extra trips and a penalty of Rs.50/- for lesser trips. It was further contended that though there was a post of driver to which appointments as per the Recruitment Rules were to be made but the petitioner could not pass the said test.
3. The Labour Court found that there was no dispute that the respondent workman had worked with the petitioner NDMC for two and a half years i.e. more than 240 days continuously. The Labour Court further found that the petitioner NDMC had failed to produce any document to show that the respondent workman was appointed on contract basis for a W.P.(C)13957/2004 Page 2 of 4 particular work and for a particular period. The plea of oral contract was disbelieved.
4. The file of the Labour Court was requisitioned in this Court and has been perused. No ground for interference with the findings aforesaid of the Labour Court is made out. The only document produced by the petitioner NDMC before the Labour Court is a noting in the files of the NDMC containing the terms and conditions applicable to the drivers operating the refuse compactors. There is nothing to show that the respondent workman was privy to the same or made aware of the same. Moreover, as per the said file noting also, a contract was to be entered into. No such contract is shown. The version of the Labour Court of the respondent workman in the circumstances having been employed with the petitioner NDMC continuously for two and a half years is a plausible version and no case for interference under Article 226 is shown. This Court cannot give any credence to the argument raised of a verbal contract. If such arguments were to be accepted, Section 2(oo)(bb) which is meant to be an exception shall negate the other provisions of the I.D. Act and to the detriment of the workmen.
5. The counsel for the petitioner NDMC next contended that the compensation awarded is excessive. Though there is some merit in this contention considering that the respondent workman had worked for the petitioner NDMC for two and a half years only and at an emolument of W.P.(C)13957/2004 Page 3 of 4 Rs.2,500/- per month but considering the fact that owing to the stay of operation of the award in the present proceedings, the payment of the awarded amount has been already delayed for over six years and further since no interest for the said delay is being awarded to the respondent workman, it is not found expedient to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded.
6. The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner NDMC is directed to pay the awarded amount to the respondent workman within six weeks of today failing which it shall incur simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Litigation expenses having already been paid, no order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 19th May, 2010 gsr W.P.(C)13957/2004 Page 4 of 4