Delhi High Court
Subhash Chand vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 21 April, 2011
Author: Rekha Sharma
UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP (C) No.5861/2007
Date of Decision: April 21, 2011
SUBHASH CHAND ..... Petitioner
through Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, Advocate with
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent
through Mr. Yogmaya Agnihotri, Advocate
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)
It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner
was employed with the respondent as a Chowkidar w.e.f.
October 20, 1989. He was a muster roll monthly paid worker and he
continued as such till February 17, 1997 on which date his services
were terminated. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which
was referred to the Labour Court with the following term of
reference:-
WP (C) No.5861/2007 Page 1
"Whether the services of Shri Subhash Chand
have been terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the Management, and if so, to
what relief is he entitled and what directions
are necessary in this respect?"
The services of the petitioner were terminated, allegedly, on
the ground that on the night intervening February 13-14, 1997 while
he was on duty, a rape occurred in the premises of the school where
he was deployed and hence, he was held guilty of gross misconduct.
During the proceedings before the Labour Court, the respondent‟s
own witness, namely, Smt. Joginder Taluja, Deputy Education
Officer, South Zone, Delhi deposed in favour of the petitioner. She
stated that the workman was on rest on the night between 13th &
14th February, 1997 and that one Shri Hoshiar Singh, Chowkidar
was on duty on the aforesaid night. She also stated that no
charge-sheet was given to the petitioner, nor any departmental
inquiry was held against him before terminating his services. In
view of the said deposition of the respondent‟s witness, the Labour
Court held that the services of the petitioners were illegally and
unjustifiably terminated.
It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that
since the petitioner was only a muster roll monthly paid worker, his
services could be terminated without an inquiry.
It is true that petitioner was a muster roll daily wager and
hence, no inquiry was required to be conducted before his services
WP (C) No.5861/2007 Page 2
could be terminated, but it is also true that he had worked with the
respondent for more than 7 years and as such, in view of
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, his services could
not be terminated without giving him one month‟s notice in writing
indicating the reasons for his retrenchment or paying him wages in
lieu of such notice. Admittedly, this was not done.
This Court in the case of Ram Narain versus Management
of Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. being
WP(C) No.15089/2006 decided on March 21, 2007 has held that,
"there is no distinction in industrial law between a permanent
employee and a temporary employee. As long as a person is
employed to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,
operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, he is a
workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, and will get the benefits
of that Act." It has been further held that, "Section 25-F read with
Section 25-B shall come in aid of even those workmen who are
employed on muster roll on casual basis and their services can only
be terminated by giving them notice as provided in the said sections
subject of course to the condition that they have rendered more
than 240 days of service in the year prior to the proposed
termination."
The present case is no different from the case of Ram Narain
(supra). The petitioner had worked with the respondent for more
WP (C) No.5861/2007 Page 3
than 7 years and yet his services were terminated without recourse
to the provisions of Sections 25B & 25F of the Act.
The Labour Court despite having given a finding in favour of
the petitioner has, instead of directing his reinstatement with
consequential benefits, simply awarded compensation to the tune of
` 20,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
awarding of a paltry sum of ` 20,000/- by way of compensation is
adding insult to injury.
For what has been noticed above, I feel that the award of the
Labour Court dated May 04, 2006 in so far as it grants
compensation to the petitioner to the tune of ` 20,000/- is liable to
be set-aside and the petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement in
service with full consequential benefits. Ordered accordingly.
The writ-petition is disposed of.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
APRIL 21, 2011
ka
WP (C) No.5861/2007 Page 4
