Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Sh. Kanwar Pal And Anr.
2003 Latest Caselaw 458 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule. With the consent of the counsel for both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing today.

2. This is a writ petition which challenges the award of Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') dated 12th September, 2000, passed in ID No. 11/98 which directed mere payment of the salary of 7 months with effect from 26th August, 1992 to 12th March, 1993 to the respondent No. 1/workman.

3. The dispute which was referred to adjudication was whether the respondent No. 1/workman employed by the Horticulture Department of the MCD was entitled to wages for the period 26th August, 1992 to 12th March, 1993.

4. Besides the fact that the amount awarded pursuant to the impugned Award dated 12th September, 2000 is negligible, the petitioner, MCD itself was given various opportunities to file written statement and costs for the adjournments were imposed by the Tribunal. Neither the costs were paid nor any written statement has been filed before the Tribunal and accordingly the defense of the petitioner/management was struck off on 27th July, 1999.

5. The view of the Industrial Tribunal in respect of the small amount involved cannot be considered to be so unreasonable and perverse so as to warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 particularly when the MCD itself has been casual about the conduct of the case and its defense was struck off.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly the respondent No. 1/workman did not report for duty after 25th August, 1992 and did not perform any duty with the petitioner/management till 13th April, 1993. The Tribunal has held that the workman/respondent No. 1 was denied duty on 26th August, 1992 and therefore till 13th April, 1993 and this finding of the Tribunal has gone unchallenged. This is a finding of fact which does not warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction. Since the petitioner is itself responsible for this situation by being indifferent to the conduct of the case before the Tribunal, no interference is called for under Article 226 in the present writ petition.

7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs and stands disposed of as such. Interim order dated 15th March, 2002 stands vacated.