Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Dharam Pal
2009 Latest Caselaw 3810 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C.) No. 11661/2009

%                 Date of Decision: 16th September, 2009

#     MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
                                                      ..... PETITIONER
!                 Through:     Mr. Himanshu Upadhyaya, Advocate.

                                   VERSUS

$     DHARAM PAL
                                                              .....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. 11563/2009 in W.P.(C.) No. 11661/2009

Delay in re-filing of this writ petition is condoned.

W.P.(C.) No. 11661/2009 and C.M. No. 11561/2009(for stay)

The MCD in this writ petition seeks to challenge an industrial award

dated 13.10.2006 in I.D. No. 191/2006 by which it has been held that the

respondent workman was entitled to the pay scale of Fitter of Rs. 260-

400 (revised from time to time) w.e.f 02.06.1987 (date of promotion).

2. Heard on admission.

3. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the respondent

workman had died during the pendency of the proceedings pending

before the Labour Court. On his demise, his widow Shrimati Shakuntala

Devi was substituted as his legal heir. The petitioner MCD knowing fully

well about the death of the workman has filed this petition against the

deceased workman. The petition against a dead person is not

maintainable. Furthermore, there is unexplained delay of about three

years in filing of the present petition. It shall be significant to mention

that the Court below in the impugned award has referred to two cases of

Mr. Mukhram and Mr. Bhairo Singh, Fitters (both junior to the deceased

workman) who have been granted the benefit of pay scale that has been

granted to the deceased workman. This finding of fact contained in the

impugned award has not been assailed in the present writ petition. It

goes unchallenged that the petitioner has already granted the benefit of

pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (revised from time to time) to at least two junior

persons to the deceased workman namely to Mr. Mukhram and Mr.

Bhairo Singh. There is no reason why the petitioner should discriminate

with the deceased workman who was admittedly senior to Mr. Mukhram

and Mr. Bhairo Singh, Fitters, in the matter of granting benefit of pay

scale of Rs. 260-400 (revised from time to time) with effect from the date

of his promotion as Fitter, i.e., 02.06.1987.

4. In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any infirmity,

illegality 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. Stay application is also

dismissed.

September 16, 2009,                                   S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'