Ram Dass vs World Fashion
2010 Latest Caselaw 5815 Del

                                                              UNREPORTABLE


*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                              W.P. (C) No.8505/2010

                                       Date of Decision: December 21, 2010


       RAM DASS                            ..... Petitioner
                          through Mr. Arun K Yadav, Advocate

                     versus


       WORLD FASHION                       ..... Respondent
                          through None

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers 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

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

This writ-petition has been preferred against the judgment of the

Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.IX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi dated

April 20, 2010 holding that the services of the petitioner with the

respondent-Management were for a fixed period w.e.f. June 01, 1997 to

June 16, 1997 and that he having not worked for 240 days with the

Management, he was not entitled to any relief. It has been further held

that he had left the service of his own accord after the expiry of his

fixed term.

The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the

appointment letter of the petitioner Ext. WW1/M1 bears his signatures

at point 'A'. He also does not dispute that the said appointment letter

WP(C) No.8505/2010 Page 1 was for a fixed period beginning from June 01, 1997 to June 16, 1997.

His only defence is that his signatures were obtained on blank papers

implying thereby that the same were later converted into

Ext. WW1/M1. However, he led no evidence to substantiate the

allegation that his signatures were obtained on blank papers.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view

that in the face of the appointment letter Ext. WW1/M1 which

admittedly bears the signatures of the petitioner at point 'A' and as per

which his employment with the Management was for a fixed period

between June 01, 1997 to June 16, 1997, no fault can be found with the

impugned order holding that the petitioner had not worked for 240

days. The submission that the signatures of the petitioner were

obtained on blank papers has no basis and in any case, such an

allegation cannot be gone into by this Court in the exercise of its writ

jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the writ-petition.

The same is dismissed.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

DECEMBER 21, 2010 PC.

WP(C) No.8505/2010                                                    Page 2