New Delhi Municipal Council vs Ram Kumar
2010 Latest Caselaw 2671 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P.(C) 13957/2004

%                                            Date of decision: 19th May, 2010

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL                 ..... Petitioner
                Through: Mr. P.C. Sen, Advocate

                                    Versus
RAM KUMAR                                             ..... Respondent
                            Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether 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            NO
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner NDMC by this writ petition impugns the award dated

9th January, 2004 of the Labour Court, holding the respondent workman to

be an employee of the petitioner NDMC and further holding his services to

have been terminated without compliance of the provisions of Section 25F

of the I.D. Act. The termination of the employment of the respondent

workman was thus held to be bad. However, since the respondent

workman was found to have failed to show appointment to a particular post

on which he could be reinstated, the Labour Court granted the relief only of

payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of lumpsum compensation to the

respondent workman. The respondent workman has not challenged the

award.

2. It was the case of the respondent workman before the Labour Court

that he was appointed as a Heavy Motor Vehicle Driver with the petitioner

NDMC at a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month with effect from 1st November,

1994 and continued to so work for the petitioner NDMC till 1st February,

1997 when his services were terminated without giving any reason and he

was simply asked not to come on duty from the next day. The petitioner

NDMC contested the said claim by contending that the respondent

workman was not employed but was engaged on the basis of a verbal

contract and was obliged to complete 50 trips in a month to get Rs.2,500/-

per month at the rate of Rs.40/- per trip and with an incentive at the rate of

Rs.100/- per trip for extra trips and a penalty of Rs.50/- for lesser trips. It

was further contended that though there was a post of driver to which

appointments as per the Recruitment Rules were to be made but the

petitioner could not pass the said test.

3. The Labour Court found that there was no dispute that the

respondent workman had worked with the petitioner NDMC for two and a

half years i.e. more than 240 days continuously. The Labour Court further

found that the petitioner NDMC had failed to produce any document to

show that the respondent workman was appointed on contract basis for a

particular work and for a particular period. The plea of oral contract was

disbelieved.

4. The file of the Labour Court was requisitioned in this Court and has

been perused. No ground for interference with the findings aforesaid of

the Labour Court is made out. The only document produced by the

petitioner NDMC before the Labour Court is a noting in the files of the

NDMC containing the terms and conditions applicable to the drivers

operating the refuse compactors. There is nothing to show that the

respondent workman was privy to the same or made aware of the same.

Moreover, as per the said file noting also, a contract was to be entered into.

No such contract is shown. The version of the Labour Court of the

respondent workman in the circumstances having been employed with the

petitioner NDMC continuously for two and a half years is a plausible

version and no case for interference under Article 226 is shown. This

Court cannot give any credence to the argument raised of a verbal contract.

If such arguments were to be accepted, Section 2(oo)(bb) which is meant to

be an exception shall negate the other provisions of the I.D. Act and to the

detriment of the workmen.

5. The counsel for the petitioner NDMC next contended that the

compensation awarded is excessive. Though there is some merit in this

contention considering that the respondent workman had worked for the

petitioner NDMC for two and a half years only and at an emolument of

Rs.2,500/- per month but considering the fact that owing to the stay of

operation of the award in the present proceedings, the payment of the

awarded amount has been already delayed for over six years and further

since no interest for the said delay is being awarded to the respondent

workman, it is not found expedient to interfere with the quantum of

compensation awarded.

6. The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner NDMC is directed to

pay the awarded amount to the respondent workman within six weeks of

today failing which it shall incur simple interest at the rate of 7% per

annum. Litigation expenses having already been paid, no order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 19th May, 2010 gsr