New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Shri Rambir
2009 Latest Caselaw 2514 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) No. 9852/2009

%                       Date of Decision: 07 July, 2009


# New Delhi Municipal Corporation
                                                            ..... Petitioner
!           Through: Mr. P.C. Sen, Advocate.

                                  Versus

$ Shri Rambir
                                                          .....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) CM No. 8068/2009 (Exemption) in WP(C) No.9852/2009

Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions.

WP(C) No.9852/2009

This writ petition filed by the management is directed against an

award dated 25.07.2008 passed by Mr. I.S. Mehta, Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal No. I, Delhi directing regularization of the workman

(respondent herein) w.e.f. 01.04.1997 i.e. the date when persons junior

to him were regularized by the petitioner in terms of its policy for

regularization of daily wagers.

2 The respondent was appointed as Mali-Beldar in the Horticulture

Department of the NDMC (petitioner herein) on 25.07.1985. He was

appointed as a daily wager. His services were terminated w.e.f.

14.12.1988 without assigning any reason. The termination was

challenged by the respondent (workman) by raising an industrial dispute

and vide award dated 02.09.1999 in ID No. 116/1990, the termination of

the workman was held illegal and unjustified and he was ordered to be

reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages which become

enforceable w.e.f. 02.12.1999. The claim of the workman for

regularization w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment i.e. 25.07.1985

was declined by the Tribunal below but since persons junior to the

respondent appointed on the same date along with the respondent were

regularized in service w.e.f. 01.04.1997 in terms of policy formulated by

the NDMC, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to regularize the workman

also w.e.f. 01.04.1997 with all consequential benefits.

3 Mr. Sen learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has

contended that the respondent was not entitled for regularization as he

had not worked continuously with the petitioner and for that reason,

according to him, he did not fit into the policy of the petitioner for

regularization of daily wager. This argument urged by Mr. Sen is of no

legal consequence because the regularization of the respondent has

been ordered by the Tribunal below on a finding of fact recorded in the

impugned award that persons junior/counterparts to the respondent

appointed along with the respondent on daily wages on the same day

have already been regularized by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1997. This

finding of fact contained in the impugned award has nowhere been

attacked in the grounds of challenge contained in the present writ

petition. I therefore do not find any infirmity in the impugned award

which may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extra

ordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution.

4 In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition

which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

CM No. 8069/2009 (for stay) in WP(C) No.9852/2009

5 Since the main writ petition has been dismissed in limine, the

application for stay being CM No. 8069/2009 is rendered infructuous and

stands disposed of accordingly.

July 07, 2009                                    S.N.AGGARWAL
a                                                   [JUDGE]