*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 28th April, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 2750/2011 & CM No.5871/2011 (for condonation of
delay)
JAGESHWAR DAYAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate
Versus
INTERNATIONAL TRADERS ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may No.
be allowed to see the judgment?
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 workman impugns the award dated 23 rd February, 2010 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:
"Whether the services of Sh. Jageshwar Dayal S/o Sh. Narayan have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum W.P.(C)2750/2011 Page 1 of 5 of money as monetary relief alongwith consequential benefit in terms of existing laws / Government notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. The Industrial Adjudicator has found that the question of illegal termination of services of the petitioner workman did not arise since the petitioner workman was not performing his duty in the year 1996, having left the job in February, 1996 itself and therefore was not found entitled to any relief.
3. The writ petition has been filed after one year of the award and is accompanied with an application for condonation of the delay in re- filing the petition. However, there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay of one year in filing the petition. The counsel for the petitioner workman on enquiry states that the petition has been filed through Legal Aid after the petitioner workman was ditched by his earlier advocate.
4. However, the counsel is unable to inform as to when the petitioner workman had applied for Legal Aid.
5. Be that as it may, the matter has also been considered on merits. W.P.(C)2750/2011 Page 2 of 5
6. The petitioner workman claims to have been working with the respondent employer as a Salesman with effect from 1 st April, 1989 on a consolidated salary of `5,000/- per month. The petitioner on 8th April, 2001 issued a communication to the respondent employer stating that while travelling for office work on 30th March, 1996 he had met with an accident and was under treatment in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and remained admitted in the Hospital from 30th March, 1996 to 30th August, 1996; that he had not received his wages, medical reimbursement etc. with effect from 1st February, 1994 itself and demanding the said wages. In the heading of the said notice, it is also mentioned that the petitioner workman was dismissed from service on 2nd January, 1999. There is no mention in the notice of the petitioner workman having prior to 8th April, 2001 sent any communication to the respondent employer in this regard.
7. The respondent employer contested the reference by contending that the petitioner workman had stopped reporting since the year 1996 and of his own left the employment and the dispute raised after nearly five years was only by way of blackmailing.
W.P.(C)2750/2011 Page 3 of 5
8. Issues were framed by the Industrial Adjudicator and affidavit by way of examination-in-chief filed by the petitioner but the petitioner neither tendered the same nor offered himself for cross examination owing whereto his evidence was closed on 28th April, 2008; though on 14th August, 2008 an application for setting aside the order dated 28 th April, 2008 was filed but the same was also dismissed in default on 30th September, 2008; though the petitioner appeared thereafter and cross examined the witnesses of the employer but did not seek any opportunity to lead his evidence. The Industrial Adjudicator in the absence of any evidence answered the reference as aforesaid.
9. Though the counsel for the petitioner workman contends that the petitioner workman was terminated in 1999 only but in the face of the admission that he was not being paid wages from 1996, the version of the respondent employer is more acceptable than that of the petitioner workman.
10. The counsel for the petitioner workman has along with the petition filed the order sheets of the Industrial Adjudicator which have been perused and which also show that the petitioner workman has W.P.(C)2750/2011 Page 4 of 5 been dragging his feet and not only belatedly raised the dispute but appears to have been in no hurry before the Industrial Adjudicator also.
11. No case for entertaining this writ petition is made out. The same is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.
CM No.5870/2011 (u/S 151 CPC for exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) APRIL 28, 2011 'gsr' W.P.(C)2750/2011 Page 5 of 5