Ajay Kumar vs M/S. Killburn Office Automation ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3214 Del

                                                                               37
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      L.P.A.4/2010

AJAY KUMAR                                       ..... Appellant
                                Through:Mr. Sugriva Dubey, Advocate

                       versus

M/S. KILLBURN OFFICE
AUTOMATION LTD.                     ..... Respondent
                   Through: Mr. M.R. Sehgal, Advocate.

%                                           Date of Decision: 12th July, 2010

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


                                JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J (ORAL)

L.P.A.4/2010 & CMs No. 116/2010 and 118/2010

1. Present Letters Patent appeal has been filed challenging the

judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 06 th July,

2009 by virtue of which appellant's writ petition impugning the award

passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 16th October, 2006 has been

dismissed.

2. Mr. Sugriva Dubey, learned counsel for appellant submitted that

respondent had illegally terminated the services of the appellant

without following the procedure prescribed for retrenchment of surplus

workmen. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that two workmen

namely, Mr Mahesh Kumar and Mr. Sahu despite being junior to the

appellant, are still in the employment of the respondent.

3. However, upon perusal of the file, we find that the Industrial

Tribunal has concluded on facts as under:-

"31. The witnesses produced by the management have categorically stated that there was only 41 employees working with the Northern Region of the management company. Out of these 41 employees, 34 employees were the officers and there were only 7 workmen. These seven workmen were Sh. Ram Murti Singh Service Mechanic, Sh. Ajay Kumar Mechanic, Sh. Balak Ram Rana Mechanic, Sh. Bhupender Sharma, Mechanic, Sh. Hari Om Sharma Clerk, Sh. R.. Tiwari Peon, AND Mrs. Mira S. Puri Stenographer.

32. The management has no workmen in the category of the retrenched workmen in their office now. Sh. R.K. Tiwari WW2 admitted that the management has not recruited any new employees. The affidavit filed by Sh. Balak Ram Rana, Sh. Bhupender Sharma and Sh. Ajay Kumar clearly shows that Sh. Mahesh Kumar and Sh. Sahu are not on the rolls of the management. This clearly proves that the management has not retained any persons junior to the retrenched workers. It is also established form the evidence that the management has not employed any new workmen for the work done by the retrenched workers......"

4. The learned Single Judge also did not find any ground for

interference with the findings reached by the Industrial Tribunal in

exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction.

5. We are of the opinion that keeping in view the aforesaid

findings of the Industrial Tribunal, it is apparent that the appellant has

been terminated by following a process of retrenchment of surplus

workmen. It is also apparent that Mr. Mahesh Kumar and Mr. Sahu

are not on the rolls of the management. Consequently, present appeal

being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

JULY 12, 2010 js