M.C.D vs Bhagirath Singh
2011 Latest Caselaw 3744 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of decision: 4th August, 2011
+                                  W.P.(C) 5752/2008
         M.C.D                                             ..... Petitioner
                               Through: Mr. Rahat Bansal for Ms. Amita
                                          Gupta, Adv.
                                      Versus
    BHAGIRATH SINGH                    ..... Respondent
                 Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may           Not necessary
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                Not necessary

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported               Not necessary
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The respondent workman is reported to have been served by ordinary process. None appears. The respondent workman is proceeded against ex parte.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the award dated 10 th November, 2006 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:-

"Whether the services of Sh. Bhagirath Singh 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?"

and granting the relief to the respondent workman of lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- only. Notice of the petition was issued and subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses in this Court the operation of the award stayed. The said amount is stated to have been deposited. The respondent workman as aforesaid has failed to appear inspite of service.

3. The case of the respondent workman before the Industrial Adjudicator was that he was employed with the petitioner MCD as a Mali/Beldar w.e.f. 26th May, 1991 in Shahdara (South) Zone as a muster roll Beldar and his services were transferred to Central Zone w.e.f. May, 1992 and he was being paid wages throughout as per the Minimum Wages Act; his grievance was that his services were terminated w.e.f. 26 th July, 1993 without assigning any reason.

4. The petitioner MCD contested the aforesaid claim pleading that the respondent workman had never worked with the petitioner MCD and there was no entry of the name of the respondent workman in the muster roll.

5. The Industrial Adjudicator on the basis of the petitioner MCD in the cross examination of the respondent workman not putting the suggestions

that the respondent workman had never worked with the petitioner MCD and on the basis of the witness of the petitioner MCD in the cross examination admitting that the name of the respondent workman existed in the muster roll held the respondent workman to have been in the employment of the petitioner MCD and thus awarded the relief as aforesaid.

6. The aforesaid are findings of fact and on the basis of appreciation of evidence and the counsel for the petitioner MCD has been unable to show anything as to how the said findings are perverse or unreasonable. Even otherwise in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it is not deemed appropriate to interfere with the award aforesaid and it appears that the petitioner MCD must have spent more money in preferring and pursuing this petition than what it was liable for under the award.

There is no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) AUGUST 4, 2011 pp..