Shri Umesh Chand Sharma vs M/S Jeevan Service Station
2009 Latest Caselaw 3116 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C.) No. 5396/2008

%                  Date of Decision: 11th August, 2009


# SHRI UMESH CHAND SHARMA.
                                                   ..... PETITIONER
!                  Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.

                                VERSUS

$ M/S JEEVAN SERVICE STATION
                                                       .....RESPONDENT

^                  Through: Nemo.

CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) This writ petition filed by the workman is directed against an award

dated 25.11.2006 passed by Ms. Nisha Saxena, Presiding Officer, Labour

Court-XXI, Delhi, by which no relief has been given to him for alleged

termination of his services by the management of the respondent.

2. Heard.

3. As per the case of the petitioner, he was appointed as a Helper by

the respondent w.e.f. 01.05.1990 and was terminated by the respondent

without any inquiry w.e.f. 12.04.1995. However, as per the management,

the petitioner was appointed at a salary of Rs. 1,800/- per month w.e.f.

01.04.1994 and he had resigned of his own on 12.04.1995 and had

settled his account with the respondent vide voucher dated 13.04.1995.

The management has proved the appointment letter (Exhibit MW-2/1),

resignation letter (Exhibit MW-2/3) and the settlement vouchers dated

13.04.1994 (Exhibit MW-2/4) and 20.04.1995 (Exhibit MW-2/5) in its

evidence before the Labour Court. The petitioner had denied his

signatures on the resignation letter and also on the vouchers (Exhibit

MW-2/3 to Exhibit MW-2/5). The management in its evidence produced

before the Labour Court has examined handwriting expert, Mr. S.P. Singh,

who has approved that the resignation letter and the vouchers bears the

genuine signature of the workman (petitioner herein). The Court below,

relying upon the two judgments in the impugned award, has held that the

workman has failed to prove that the resignation letter and the

settlement vouchers do not bear his signatures as alleged by him.

4. The issue before the Court below was whether the respondent has

terminated the services of the petitioner, as alleged by him or had he

resigned the services of the respondent on his own. The Labour Court

after considering the evidence produced by the parties before it came to

the conclusion that the petitioner had resigned the services of the

respondent of his own and had already settled his account before raising

the industrial dispute.

5. I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned

award that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its

extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed in

limine.

6. LCR be sent back.

AUGUST 11, 2009                                        S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'