Biru And Anr vs Department Of Forest And Wildlife
2011 Latest Caselaw 2183 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Date of decision: 25th April, 2011

+                                W.P.(C) 1960/2011

         BIRU AND ANR                                           ..... Petitioners
                                Through:     Mr. K.C. Dubey, Advocate.

                                         versus

    DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILDLIFE .... Respondent
                 Through: Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao & Ms. Neha
                           Jain, Advocates.
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 two petitioners impugn the award dated 29 th January, 2008 of

the Industrial Adjudicator deciding the following reference:-

"Whether Shri Karan Singh S/o Shri Gyasi Ram and other four workmen (No. ii to v) have left their job on their own or their services 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?"

against the petitioners workmen.

2. The petitioners workmen claim to have been appointed to the post of

Mali/Beldar in the respondent Horticulture Department in July, 1988 and

further claim to have been transferred to the Forest Department and

working at Bhati Mines, Mehrauli Block, New Delhi as Mali/Beldar; they

admit that they were employed as daily rated/casual/muster roll workers

and being paid minimum wages; they claim that their services were

terminated on 10th June, 1989 without assigning any reasons whatsoever.

3. Though the services of the petitioners were claimed to have been

terminated as aforesaid but the petitioners did not immediately raise any

dispute whatsoever in this regard. The dispute of which reference was

made was raised after 14 years from the date of alleged wrongful

termination. The counsel for the petitioners on enquiry states that other

workmen similarly situated and dealt with as the petitioners had

immediately on termination raised a dispute and in which an award in their

favour was made and upheld by the High Court and it is thereafter that the

petitioners, claiming to be entitled to the same relief, first filed a writ

petition no.327/2000 in this Court and upon dismissal of the same with

liberty to approach the Industrial Adjudicator, approached the Industrial

Adjudicator as aforesaid.

4. It was the case of the respondent employer before the Industrial

Adjudicator that the petitioners were engaged as daily wager/casual

workers and had never worked as Malis; that they had raised the dispute

after long delay on false grounds; that they had worked for a few months

and had thereafter abandoned their services of their own and in the said

long span of 14 years neither approached the respondent nor sent any

representation.

5. The Industrial Adjudicator in the award impugned in this petition

has recorded, the admissions of the petitioners that they had not made any

representation or complaint with regard to the termination; that there was

thus an inordinate delay and laches in filing the claim; that the petitioners

had failed to prove that they had worked with the respondent for a period

of 240 days; that on the muster roll produced by the respondent, the names

of the petitioners were found to appear in July and August, 1988 only but

did not appear from October, 1988 till December, 1988 and March 1989 to

June, 1989; that the petitioners had thus not worked with the respondent

even in the capacity of casual labour for 240 days in a year preceding the

termination. Accordingly, the reference was decided against the

petitioners.

6. The present writ petition also has been filed after three years from

the award impugned herein.

7. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that delay is of no

relevance in Industrial/Labour jurisdiction and the only effect of delay is to

mould the relief. He has also contended that the effect of the delay is to be

considered at the time of reference and once the dispute had been referred

it could not have been decided for the reason of delay. He contends that the

respondent if aggrieved by the order of reference ought to have challenged

the same.

8. I am unable to agree. The petitioners for 14 years were satisfied with

the action of the respondent. Just because some other workmen stated to be

similarly situated as the petitioners succeeded against the respondent,

would not entitle the petitioners to after such long lapse of time claim

relief. Moreover, in the present case there are findings of the petitioners

having not even worked with the respondent continuously for 240 days in

the year preceding the termination and which findings of facts on the basis

of muster roll produced cannot in any case be interfered in exercise of the

power of judicial review.

9. Not only so, the long delay of over three years in preferring the

petition is also inexplicable. The counsel for the petitioners fairly admits

that no explanation for the said delay has been pleaded. The petitioners

obviously are employed elsewhere and are pursing the present litigation as

a wager. The process of this Court cannot be permitted to be abused in this

fashion.

10. The writ petition is dismissed. I refrain from imposing any costs.

CM No.4150/2011 (for exemption).

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) APRIL 25th , 2011 pp..