* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% W.P.(C) 16948/2005
+ Date of Decision: 9th February, 2012
# DELHI JAL BOARD ....Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Suresh Tripathi, Advocate
Versus
$ ITS WORKMAN SRI PHOOLCHAND .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, Advocate
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL) The petitioner-management has challenged the Award dated 31st January, 2002 passed by the labour Court whereby reference made to it by the appropriate Government at the instance of the respondent-workman in respect of the industrial dispute raised by him regarding the termination of his services by the petitioner- management had been answered in his favour and he was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-workman was employed with the petitioner-management as a Beldar with effect from 13th January, 1984 and he was getting ` 11.60 per day. However, on 11th October, 1986 the petitioner-management terminated his services without assigning any reason. He then approached the labour W.P.(C) 16948/2005 Page 1 of 5 authorities. Since conciliation efforts did not fructify the appropriate Government made a reference to the labour Court vide notification no. F.24(3990)/90-Lab./34438-43 dated 19th September, 1990 with the following term of reference.
"Whether the services of Sh. Phool Chand 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."
3. The respondent-workman filed a claim statement before the labour Court in which he pleaded that he was employed with the petitioner-management from 13th January, 1984 to 11th October, 1986 as a Beldar when suddenly on 11th October, 1986 his services were illegally terminated.
4. The petitioner-management filed its written statement before the labour Court denying the very relationship of employer-employee between it and the respondent-workman.
5. The learned labour Court had framed the following issues for trial:-
i) Whether there was relationship of employer and employee between the parties?
ii) Whether the reference is bad for the reasons as stated in para 1, 2, 3 of the preliminary objections?
iii) Whether a valid and proper demand was raised by the petitioner against the respondent?iv) As in the terms of reference. W.P.(C) 16948/2005 Page 2 of 5
6. The respondent-workman examined himself as WW-1 and from the side of the petitioner-management two witnesses were examined. After examining the evidence adduced from both the sides the learned labour Court came to the conclusion that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the parties and further held that services of respondent-workman were terminated illegally and unjustifiably and gave its award accordingly. The petitioner- management felt aggrieved with the Award dated 31 st January, 2002 of the labour Court and filed the present writ petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner's main argument was that even though it was respondent's own case in his statement of claim that he was employed with the petitioner as a Beldar but the learned labour Court has erroneously referred to his statement made in his evidence that he was working as a Pump Operator and making a reference to that part of statement of the respondent-workman in his evidence it is implied that the final relief given to the respondent- workman was for his reinstatement as a Pump Operator and not as a Beldar.
8. Responding to this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent was not claiming his reinstatement as a Pump Operator and in any case nothing would turn around the statement made by the respondent in evidence that he was working as a Pump Operator and management would not suffer in any way since the wages payable to a W.P.(C) 16948/2005 Page 3 of 5 Beldar and Pump Operator were same and which fact, in fact, had been admitted by the management's own witness (MW-1) in his cross- examination.
9. The main defence of the petitioner-management in its written statement was that there was no relationship of employer-employee between the petitioner and the respondent but that defence was falsified by its own witness, MW-1 Sh. Sher Singh, Junior Engineer, who had categorically admitted that the respondent was working as a Beldar on regular muster roll basis and further that he had left the job on his own and the management had not terminated his services. When the respondent was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner a suggestion was put to him at one stage that he had abandoned his services but later on another suggestion was put to him that his services had been terminated as the same were not found to be satisfactory. From this evidence on record, it is clear that the learned labour Court had rightly come to the conclusion that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent.
10. Since it was suggested to the respondent-workman in his cross- examination that he had abandoned his job, which suggestion of course he had categorically denied, the management should have adduced evidence to establish that defence but none of its witnesses said so in evidence. As far as the other suggestion put to the respondent in his cross-examination that his services were terminated because the same were not found to be satisfactory is concerned, the W.P.(C) 16948/2005 Page 4 of 5 same has also remained unsubstantiated and in fact none of the two management's witnesses had even claimed that respondent- workman's services were terminated because of the same having been found to be not satisfactory. In these circumstances, I am of the view that learned labour Court was further justified in coming to the conclusion that it was a case of illegal and unjustified termination of services of the respondent-workman.
11. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed but with a clarification that the relief of reinstatement of the respondent-workman would be as a Beldar only.
P.K. BHASIN, J FEBRUARY 09, 2012/pg W.P.(C) 16948/2005 Page 5 of 5