Delhi High Court
Anil Sharma vs M/S Central Soil And Material ... on 13 October, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No. 12355/2009
% Date of Decision: 13th October, 2009
# ANIL SHARMA
..... PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Varun Prasad, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ M/S CENTRAL SOIL AND MATERIAL RESEARCH 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? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? NO
S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
C.M. No. 12756/2009 in W.P.(C.) No. 12355/2009
This is an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of
delay in re-filing of the petition.
Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioner, delay in re-filing of the petition is condoned.
W.P.(C.) No. 12355/2009
The petitioner workman in this writ petition seeks to challenge an
industrial award dated 30.06.2008 in I.D. No. 84/1996 passed by the
CGIT, New Delhi, awarding him compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of his
claim for reinstatement and back wages for alleged termination of his
services by the management of the respondent w.e.f. 15.04.1990.
2. Heard on admission.
3. The petitioner was employed by the respondent management in its
Canteen as Coupon Clerk on daily wage basis w.e.f. 23.04.1989. His
appointment was for a specified period. He was disengaged from service
after the period for which he was employed was over. The petitioner
claimed it to be termination and raised an industrial dispute which was
referred by the appropriate Government in the Government of NCT of
Delhi for adjudication to the Labour Court.
4. I have gone through the impugned award carefully. The entire
award is loaded against the petitioner. The Court below has found that
the petitioner was, in fact, appointed as a daily wager and when a
selection against the post on which he was appointed on daily wage basis
was made pursuant to interviews held on 31.07.1989, his services were
disengaged by the respondent management. All the contentions raised
by the petitioner were duly considered by the Labour Court. The
compensation of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded in favour of the
petitioner only because the Court below noticed that the notice of
termination was not given to the petitioner and for that reason, his
disengagement was held to be illegal retrenchment. I am of the view
that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned award particularly
when it has awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the
petitioner even after holding that the petitioner was appointed as a daily
wager and was disengaged after the period of his employment was over.
In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any merit in
this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
OCTOBER 13, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR'
