Durgesh Kumar vs Delhi Jal Board And Anr.
2004 Latest Caselaw 94 Del

ORDER

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The matter has been called out twice but there is no appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 8th January, 2002 passed by the learned Labour Court No. IX in I.D. No. 1378/1994.

3. By the impugned order, the termination of the services of the petitioner with effect from 1st February, 1988 was held to be illegal. It has been noted that a demand notice was also sent by the petitioner to the respondent/management on 24th January, 1992 and the statement of claim was filed before the Conciliation Officer on 12th May, 1993.

4. Merely because a lot of time has been elapsed between notice of demand and the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, it is not a good ground for completely denying any relief to the petitioner. The learned Labour Court could have moulded the relief properly.

5. Under the circumstances, the matter is remanded back to the learned Labour Court for deciding the question of relief granted to the petitioner keeping in view the facts of the case and the delay caused by the petitioner in resorting in proceedings under law.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of.

7. The petitioner will appear before the learned Labour Court on 10th February, 2004.