New Delhi Municipal Council vs New Delhi Nagar Palika Karamchari ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 6236 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                         W.P.(C) 8496/2011
+                           Date of Decision: 19th December, 2011

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

                                Versus

$      NEW DELHI NAGAR PALIKA
       KARAMCHARI UNION
       (DEEPAK WADHWA)                                ....Respondent
                                                      Through: None

     CORAM:
*     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN

                               JUDGMENT

P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL)

The petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the management') is aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court holding the termination of services of respondent (hereinafter to be referred as 'the workman') to be illegal and ordering his reinstatement but without back wages.

2. The only point urged before me by the learned counsel for the management was that since undisputedly the workman had been employed for a fixed term contract and on a fixed salary his fixed term engagement could be discontinued on the expiry of each term. It was also contended that the last time when he was given appointment it

was as an Attorney in the Law Department vide office order dated 2 nd August, 1994 and that engagement was against one of the two reserved posts for the scheduled tribe candidates and was given for a period of six months or till a reserved category candidate was appointed, whichever was earlier in point of time. The stand of the management before the Labour Court was that since during that period of six months scheduled tribe candidates had been appointed the services of the workman were dispensed with effect from 8th August, 1994 and so no fault could be found with the management's action in discontinuing his employment and the Labour Court was clearly wrong while ordering his reinstatement in service.

4. The workman was initially appointed as a Helper for 90 days on 14th September, 1992 and vide office order dated 16th December, 1992 he was granted extension till 7th March, 1993. It is also the admitted case of the parties that on 4th February, 1993 the management issued another order giving appointment to the workman as an Attorney in the Law Department upto 28th July, 1993 on a consolidated salary of ` 1784 per month. Then vide order dated 2nd August, 1994 he was again appointed as an Attorney against one of the two posts meant for scheduled tribe candidates. This time, however, no further appointment was given to him and so he had to raise the dispute with the management.

5. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned Labour Court has observed that there was nothing on record to show that any scheduled tribe candidate was selected justifying the termination of

the services of the respondent-workman before the expiry of six months period from 2nd August, 1994. It was also observed that from the cross-examination of the management's witness it was clear that the post meant for scheduled tribes was still available with the management. That shows that the stand of the management that the appointment of the workman was discontinued as scheduled tribe candidates have been appointed was not correct. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding the termination of the services of the workman to be unjustified. It also appears that only to avoid the consequences of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act the appointments to the workman were being given on fixed term basis and the fact is that he was in continuous employment of the management from 14th September, 1992 till 7th August, 1994 and that also shows that there was no dearth of work for him and therefore, Section 25-F also gets attracted but the management admittedly did not comply with the requirements of this Section which non-compliance also vitiates the termination of services of the workman.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition justifying interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and so the same is dismissed with costs of ` 10,000/-. The costs shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre within 30 days from today and this Centre shall be informed of this order. In case the costs are not deposited with the Mediation Centre within the said period it shall take steps to get it

recovered and if any order from this Court is required to be taken for getting the costs recovered it would be at liberty to move an appropriate application.

P.K. BHASIN, J

DECEMBER 19, 2011/nk