Delhi High Court
University Of Delhi vs Shri R.K. Sharma And Ors. on 20 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 VIAD Delhi 95, 105 (2003) DLT 699, 2003 (71) DRJ 1, 2004 (1) SLJ 170 Delhi
Author: M Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This writ petition challenges the award dated 13th October 2000 by which the termination of the services of respondents 2 to 4 were found to have been illegally and unjustifiably and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of services and 50 per cent of back wages from the date of termination till their reinstatement. The reference to the Labour Court dated 22nd July 1992 arose on the following terms:
"Whether the termination of the services of S/Shri Tej Pal Jain, Mukesh Kumar and Shamsiddin is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?"
2. The workmen's case set up before the Labour Court is as follows:
a) That they had joined the services of the petitioner with effect from 15th December 1998, 1st June 1990 and 2nd February 1987 respectively and their services were illegally terminated on 28th February 1991
b) Upon 240 days continuous employment their services could not be terminated without following the procedure under Section 25F G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. The petitioner took up the plea before the Tribunal that workmen were not employed by the petitioner and were and were merely stapling and arranging the cyclostyled material and were engaged from time to time purely on casual/ temporary part time daily wage basis. The work done by the respondents came to an end due to administrative requirements and, therefore, their services were no longer required.
4. The tribunal while placing reliance on Ex. WW 1/1 to Ex. WW 3/6, held as follows:
(i) the workmen were daily wagers and had completed 240 days continuous services
(ii) Undisputedly the workmen were part time basis and appointment letter were to be issued to them
(iii) the termination of the services cannot be done without following the provisions of Section 25F of the Act and accordingly the termination of the respondents 2 to 4's services is illegal as no notices was issued nor retrenchment compensation paid.
5. In view of the above findings the workmen were directed to be reinstated and continued in service with 50 per cent back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.
6. After the matter was heard for sometime, the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Ghose, submitted his pleas be confined to the question of backwages as in such a situation he does not wish to press the claim for reinstatement. Learned counsel for the parties, therefore, addressed arguments only on the question of back wages. Even otherwise on merits, I am satisfied that no interference is called for with the impugned award. Further, I am satisfied that the Tribunal's findings that the workmen were daily wagers and completed 240 days continuous service and were employees of the university though part time cannot be faulted. It is not even the case of the university that the provisions of Section 25F of the Act was followed. The termination of the services of respondents 2 to 4 is obviously illegal and, therefore the award of the Tribunal on merits is, therefore, justified.
7. After giving careful consideration to the arguments addressed and the respective pleas of the parties as also the fact that the petitioner is an educational institution and the work done by the respondents was on part time basis, it will be sufficient in the interest of justice that since the reinstatement is not being pressed and, therefore, not granted, the amount of back wages be reduced to 60 per cent of the award given by the Tribunal.
8. Accordingly it is made clear that in so far as the order of reinstatement is concerned, as ordered by the Tribunal, in the impugned award is set aside. In respect of back wages to respondents No. 2 to 4, it is ordered that they shall be entitled to 60 per cent of the back wages ordered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 calculated the backwages as Rs. 1,04,000/- approximately. This figure was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly it is directed that the respondents 2 to 4 be paid a sum of Rs. 60,000/- each in full and final settlement of their claims and such payment be made on or before 15th July 2003.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
