Dir. M/O Information And ... vs Sopali
2003 Latest Caselaw 659 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that rejoinder is not necessary to be filed in the present case and the petition be heard on the existing pleadings.

2. With the consent of the parties, this petition is taken up today for final hearing.

3. This writ petition filed by the Director, Ministry of I&B challenges the Award dated 25th May, 2000, passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent No.1 had challenged in the Industrial Tribunal the termination of his services by the petitioner on 7th June, 1987. The respondent No.1 relied upon a office memorandum No.49/14/77-Estt dated 21st March, 1979 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs mandating regularization of services of a casual employee who had completed 240 days of work. He had further averred that being a temporary employee and having put in 240 days of service, in illegally terminating his service, the principle of last come first go was not followed as his juniors were retained in service. The petitioner did not appear at the time of hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has therefore, found that `discontinuance' is nothing but a substitute for `termination' in the present case and the respondent No.1's case does not fall within clause (a) to (c) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal also found that the impugned order violated Section 25F as the respondent No.1 had averred that he had put in 240 days of eligible continuous service, after his reinstatement in conciliation proceedings in July, 1986 until the termination of his services till 6th June, 1987. This plea was not disputed in the written statement filed by the petitioner.

4. The impugned order of the Tribunal clearly records a finding that 240 days have been put in by the respondent No.1. This finding is in fact based upon an admission by petitioner before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. There is thus nothing to show that there is any legal infirmity in the award made on this count by the Tribunal and hence it is not liable to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. However, pursuant to the Order dated 5th March, 2001 of this Court, the amount payable as per the impugned award has been deposited in this Court which construed full back wages at the rate of Rs.400/- per month starting from 6th June, 1987 till the date of the Award dated 25th May, 2000. It is not in dispute that in July, 1990 the respondent had joined services in National Archives, another Govt. of India department and would not, therefore, be entitled to any back wages beyond July, 1990.

6. Pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 5th March, 2001 the amount covered by the impugned Award was deposited in this Court. Accordingly, it will be in the interest of justice that while sustaining the impugned award the respondent is permitted to withdraw wages only from 6th June, 1987 to 30th June, 1990 i.e. Rs.14,400/- plus Rs.1,000/- as costs. The registry is accordingly directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,400/- to respondent No.1 on or before 15th August, 2003 from the amount deposited by the petitioner and the balance amount available be released in favor of the petitioner by the same date.

7. The writ petition stands partly allowed accordingly to the above extent.