Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, ... vs Shri Rajinder Singh Negi And ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 2048 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Rule.

2. This petition can be disposed of as the ground taken by the petitioner/Municipal Corporation of Delhi is that award being without jurisdiction being void ab initio as the dispute inter se the parties has not been referred to by the appropriate authority and therefore, the reference was void ab initio and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the said reference. It was further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Bajaj that the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court had not been appointed by the Central Government nor the powers under the Industrial Disputes Act have been delegated to the said tribunal and hence the award was without jurisdiction and per se void ab initio.

3. Another contention which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Labour Court has erred in passing an award on the basis of the affidavit filed by the workman that he had worked for 240 days in a year. In support of her contention, she has relied upon The Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani and on the basis of the aforesaid authority has contended that it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that in fact he had worked for 240 days by summoning the relevant record from the MCD.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent/workman has contended that with regard to the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Govt. of NCT, the Division Bench of this Court has decided that in a case where Central Government is the appropriate government in relation to the disputes arising within the jurisdiction of NCT of Delhi, the later can also take action in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Rules and in this connection has cited a decision in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shri Mahavir (LPA 413/2002), a letters patent appeal filed by the petitioner itself which was dismissed by the Division Bench and, therefore, said ground is also not available to the petitioner as that question is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Division Bench. Repelling the contention of the petitioner that the respondent/workman has not led any evidence that he worked for 240 days in a year, Mr. Ghosh has contended that the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case as the petitioner failed to bring on record the service record of the respondent/workman despite the directions of the labour court.

5. I see force in the arguments of the counsel for the workman and I have perused the order passed by the Labour Court. The labour Court has specifically mentioned that the direction was issued to the petitioner to produce the service record and despite that direction and service of notice on the Commissioner of MCD, nothing was produced. Therefore, the authority of Range Forest Officer (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner. Judging from any ground, there is no merit in this writ petition.

6. Petition is dismissed. Rule is made absolute. Interim order stands vacated. CMs. 3729/2002 and 1791/2002 also stand disposed of.