Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Sanjay Kumar And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 571 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. An application CM 4590/05 is filed for condoning the delay of 425 days in preferring the letters patent appeal against the order made by the learned single Judge in CWP 6543/03 decided on 31st October, 2003 which was filed by the present applicant against the award made by the labour court in ID 15/99 decided on 9th August, 2002 granting benefits to the workman. There is no satisfactory explanation for the delay.

2. It was submitted by the counsel that this is a case of fraud. No appointment was in fact made by the competent authority and therefore fraud vitiates everything and public exchequer should not suffer on account of fraud. It is absolutely correct to say that the public exchequer should not suffer but before saying so it is the duty of the officers to take care of the litigation and to see that the case is defended properly so that the public exchequer may not suffer.

3. In the instant case we find that before the learned Single Judge the only argument advanced was about Saturdays and Sundays not being included for completion of 240 days. Considering the various Apex Court judgments, the learned single Judge arrived at a conclusion that the workman completed 240 days in a year and therefore, termination in violation of the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act is bad in law. In view of the judgment in Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation AIR 1986 SC 458, Sundays and other paid holidays are required to be taken into account for purpose of reckoning the total number of days on which the workman is said to have worked. The judgment in Union of India v. Rajinder Kumar Sharma AIR 1993 SC 1317 dealt with the dis-entitlement to payment.

4. The argument about appointment letter being forged, was not advanced before learned single Judge and the letter is not produced before us. However, there is a letter dated 14.5.1999 under the signature of Executive Engineer XXIII asking the subordinate officer to remove the name of the persons mentioned therein from the muster roll with immediate effect till the clearance is given by the Vigilance Department. It appears that the Vigilance Department was conducting an enquiry in view of forged letters of appointments. Vide letter dated 7.5.1997 referred in the letter dated 14.5.1999 action was required to be taken for immediate removal but the letter has reached the Executive Engineer after a period of two years which is clear from the date of signing the letter. We do not know whether the Executive Engineer received the letter on 8th May, 1997 or within a short period but from the letter it appears that it was signed on 14-5-1999 and the person responsible for the negligent delay is not known. It is for the Commissioner, MCD to see that the Vigilance Department takes prompt action in the matter and public exchequer should not suffer. It is also required to be noted that in the report which is placed before us at page 22 submitted by the Vigilance Officer no action has been taken. The case was pending in the court and therefore, it was revealed that everything should be placed before the court. We find that in this behalf no evidence whatsoever was lead before the labour court. The witness who as examined by the department appeared once and matter was adjourned and thereafter the witness never appeared for completion of the evidence. No action has been taken against such an officer. We say so because there is nothing placed on the record. I the officer would have been examined who would have produced relevant material before the court pointing out about the forgery etc., the labour court could have come to a different conclusion. But in the absence of any evidence lead before the labour court it is hardly justified by the corporation to approach this Bench by preferring this appeal and where there is a delay of 425 days. An important aspect is that so far as the present workman is concerned his name is not found in the vigilance report.

Therefore we are at a loss to understand how the same is relevant for present case. The manner of conduct of legal proceedings shows that the object was to give a bonanza to a workman or to protect unscrupulous officers. If a letter was forged one and persons were appointed it was the bounden duty of the corporation to take immediate steps so as to see that they are not in service. They could have filed prosecution, they could have defended the matter properly in the labour court but having not done so it is highly improper to file such appeals which wastes the time of the court. This is one glaring example of such non application of mind. Therefore, let the officer who has filed the appeal and the officer who has sanctioned the appeal be called upon to pay the cost and it is directed that they shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of three months.

5. It is hoped that the Commissioner shall take appropriate action against the erring officers.

6. The appeal and the applications are dismissed.