Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mahipal Singh
2005 Latest Caselaw 73 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal J.

1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 29th September, 1995 directing reinstatement of the respondent workman with continuity of service with full back wages. The petitioner did file the written statement but yet did not lead any evidence inspite of several opportunities granted by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the evidence of the petitioner who was the respondent before the Labour Court, was closed. Even when the case was argued before the Labour Court, no one appeared on behalf of the Management to urge the case even though the evidence had been closed.

2. The respondent/workman in his statement of claim averred that he has performed the duty from 19th May, 1986 to 21st September, 1987 and it is evident that the workman worked for more than 240 days. It is also not in dispute that no terminal benefits were tendered to the workman as postulated by Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. This is also the finding of the Labour Court.

3. The petitioner having remained absent before the Labour Court cannot be permitted to urge new pleas in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent's appointment was against the leave vacancy and he was a temporary employee. Nevertheless having worked for 240 days, the respondent workman was entitled to the benefits available under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act as averred and proved by the respondent workman.

4. In the written statement before the Conciliation Officer in response to the statement of claim filed by the workman averring employment from 19.5.86 to 21.9.87, it was admitted that the workman worked from 19.5.87 to 18.9.87, without specifically denying the averment that the respondent workman was employed since 19.5.86. In its counter affidavit before the Labour Court, the petitioner has annexed an order of the Assistant Education Officer dated 16.5.86 which appoints the respondent. Various other documents have been filed by the respondent to demonstrate that he had been working through the period of 19.5.86 to 21.9.87. Even in the rejoinder, the existence of the office order dated 16.5.86 appointing respondent No. 1 from 19.5.86 has not been disputed. Thus it is clear that the respondent having been found to have been working since 19.5.86 until the date of the termination of his services on 21.9.87 was entitled to invoke Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition and the finding of the fact of the Labour Court cannot be interfered particularly when the MCD has been indifferent in pursuing the proceedings before the Labour Court by not leading the evidence and not even appearing at the time of arguments before the Labour Court as rightly recorded by the Labour Court.

6. There is no appearance for the respondent. In the circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that the respondent had worked only for a period of about 1 year and 4 months with the petitioner, I am satisfied that the order of full back wages is not called for. Therefore, while upholding the order of reinstatement, the back wages are reduced to 50% in view of the fact that the respondent was employed for only 19th May, 1986 to 21st September, 1987. In so far as the direction of the Tribunal granting continuity of service to the respondent is concerned, it is upheld but such continuity shall be subject to the concerned rules of the petitioner/MCD. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above directions.

All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.