Delhi High Court
Raj Singh vs Flood Control And Drainage Dept. on 4 April, 2011
Author: Rekha Sharma
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP (C) No.2223/2011
Date of Decision: April 04, 2011
RAJ SINGH ..... Petitioner
through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE DEPT. ..... Respondent
through Mr. Pankaj Batra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
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‟?
REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
The challenge in this writ-petition is to an award of the Labour
Court dated May 21, 2009. The said award is a sequel to an earlier
award of the Labour Court dated April 13, 1998. In that award, the
Labour Court had held that the petitioner herein had not completed
240 days of service and hence, he could not claim the benefit under
Section 25F or the other provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Consequently, the
claim of the petitioner for reinstatement was rejected. Aggrieved by
the award, the petitioner filed a writ-petition in this Court,
WP (C) No.2223/2011 Page 1
contending that even if the workman had not put in 240 days of
service and as such, was not entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of
the Act, he did enjoy other industrial rights, such as, recourse to
Section 25G & 25H of the Act. This Court by order dated
August 27, 2003 accepted the contention of the petitioner and
accordingly remanded the case back to the Labour Court, with a
direction to consider the matter afresh on the question, whether the
petitioner was entitled to any relief under the other provisions of
the Act apart from Section 25F. Consequent to the remand, the
Labour Court considered the matter afresh, but dismissed the claim
of the petitioner holding that he was not entitled to relief under any
of the provisions of the Act. Hence, the present writ-petition.
It is submitted that the petitioner had contended before the
Labour Court that the respondent had contravened the provisions of
Sections 25G & 25H of the Act, but the Labour Court without any
discussion or reasoning held that the said Sections were not
applicable. The Labour Court merely stated that Section 25G
provides for procedure for retrenchment and Section 25H provides
for re-employment of the retrenched workman. Hence, it is
contended that the impugned award is liable to be set-aside and the
matter once again needs to be remanded back to the Labour Court,
with a direction to consider the same afresh and pass a reasoned
order.
WP (C) No.2223/2011 Page 2
The learned counsel for the respondent who is present in
Court on advance service, contends that Sections 25G & 25H are
not applicable to the case of the petitioner-workman, as he was only
a daily wager and unless such a daily wager has completed
mandatory period of service as laid down in Section 25B of the Act,
he does not become entitled to benefit under Sections 25G & 25H of
the Act.
On going through the impugned award, I do feel that the
Labour Court without any discussion has held that Sections 25G &
25H of the Act are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. The
order discloses no reason as to why the said Sections are not
applicable.
For what has been noticed above but without going into the
rival submissions made before me, I hereby set-aside the impugned
award dated May 21, 2009 and consequently, remand the case back
to the Labour Court, with a direction to dispose of the same afresh
with a reasoned order. The parties are directed to appear before
the concerned Labour Court on April 25, 2011.
With this direction, the writ-petition is disposed of.
A copy of this order be given Dasti to learned counsels for the
parties.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
APRIL 04, 2011
ka
WP (C) No.2223/2011 Page 3
