Shri Satya Pal Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
2009 Latest Caselaw 3389 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C.) No. 11166/2009

%                 Date of Decision: 26th August, 2009

# SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH
                                                  ..... PETITIONER
!                 Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.

                                 VERSUS

$ MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
                                                .....RESPONDENT

^                 Through: Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate.

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) The workman in this writ petition seeks to challenge an award

dated 26.11.2007 passed by Ms. Mamta Tayal, Presiding Officer, Labour

Court-I, Delhi, awarding compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to him in lieu of his

claim for reinstatement and back wages.

2. Heard.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Beldar/Mali on muster roll in the

service of Municipal Corporation of Delhi w.e.f. 26.07.1999. He was a

daily wager. His services came to an end after expiry of the period for

which he was appointed w.e.f. 26.12.1999. He had served with the

respondent only for 123 days when his contract of service came to an

end. He sent a demand notice asking for his reinstatement to the

respondent after 5 years of the date when his contract of service came to

an end. The demand notice was sent by him on 17.01.2004. As the

respondent did not respond to the demand notice of the petitioner, the

petitioner raised an industrial dispute with regard to his alleged

termination by the respondent in 2005 which was referred by the

appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. The

Labour Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the

petitioner in lieu of his claim for reinstatement and back wages noting

that the respondent had employed daily wagers even after the contract

of service of the petitioner came to an end. The compensation was

awarded in favour of the petitioner as the Court below was of the view

that it was the duty of the respondent to have first called the petitioner to

work with it in stead of appointing fresh appointees. I do not wish to

make any comment on this finding of the Court below as there is no

challenge to the impugned award before me by the respondent.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, I do not

find any merit in the argument of Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the compensation awarded by

the Labour court to the petitioner is inadequate. By no stretch of

imagination it can be said that the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- awarded

to the petitioner, who had hardly worked for 123 days with the

respondents, is inadequate.

5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any 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 of India. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is

hereby dismissed in limine.

AUGUST 26, 2009                                        S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'