Delhi High Court
Munna Lal vs University Of Delhi on 13 January, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 81/2010
MUNNA LAL ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Maninder Acharya and Mr.
Yashish Chandra, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 13.01.2011
In this intra court appeal filed by Mr. Munna Lal, the appellant-
workman, the challenge is to the order dated 6th November, 2009
dismissing the W.P.(C) No.12962/2009 upholding the award dated 14 th
May, 2007 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator.
2. Vide reference dated 22nd July, 2003, the following reference
was made to the Industrial Adjudicator:-
"Whether the services of Sh. Munna Lal, S/o Sh.
Ram Khillari C/o Delhi Labour Union, Agarwal
Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi have been
terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management and if so, to what sum of money as
monetary relief along with consequential benefit in
terms of existing laws/Government notification and
to what other relief is he/are they entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect."
3. Before the Industrial Adjudicator it was submitted that the
appellant had worked as a Security Guard from 13th September, 1991
to 13th May, 1992 and as a Peon with effect from 15th June, 1992 till
mid of 1995. Counsel for the appellant before the Industrial
Adjudicator had submitted that the appellant had worked for 240 days
in the year 1992, though he had not worked for 240 days in the
immediate preceding year before termination. This, contention,
however was rejected by the Labour Court with the following
reasoning:-
"9. I perused the documents Ex.WW-1/12 & 13.
As per document Ex.WW-1/13, workman has
worked as a Security Guard for 183 days during
13.09.91 to 15.05.92 i.e. for 8 calendar months.
Ex.WW1/12 shows that the he has worked as a Peon
for six months from 15.06.92 to 14.12.92. He
thereby has worked against different posts for
different period and he thereby has not worked for
more than 240 days against a particular post during
the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date
with reference to which calculation is to be made i.e.
either from 13.05.92 or 14.12.92 and therefore he is
not entitled for protection of Section 25F of ID Act.
Therefore, he cannot even get benefit or ratio of case
law relied by him as above."
4. MW-1, Mr. T.S. Negi, who was working as an Assistant in
Establishment Section with University of Delhi in his affidavit has
stated that the appellant was appointed as a casual unskilled labourer to
undertake seasonal and occasional work in the University during the
following periods:-
"(a) Cowkidar (sic) on daily wages in the
W.U.S. Health Centre (East Delhi) from 01.05.1992
to 31.05.1992 on seasonal requirement.
(b) Unskilled Labourer for three months from
01.08.1992 to 31.10.1992 in the Examination Brach
of South Campus to undertake seasonal works.
(c) Lab-Attendant on adhoc basis in the pay
scale of Rs950-1400 for a period of six months from
16.08.1995 in department of Zoology, Faculty of
Sciences, pending selection of a regular vacancy
through due selection process, along with 2 other
persons namely Sh. Uttra Kumar and Sh. Ashok
Kumar."
5. The contention of the appellant before the Labour Court was
that he had continued to work from 1992 onwards till mid of 1995.
This contention has been rejected by the Trial Court. Though, it
appears that the appellant had in fact worked from 15 th June, 1992 to
14th December, 1992 and not up to 31st October, 1992. However, as
noticed above the appellant had also worked as Chowkidar on daily
wages in W.U.S. Health Centre (East Delhi) for seasonal work and
then for a limited period in the Examination Branch of South Campus
again for seasonal work. The two appointments were separate and as
per the findings of the Industrial Adjudicator, the employment was
contractual and for a limited purpose. Thereafter, there was hiatus and
break from December, 1992 till August, 1995. This break is for over
three years and the new appointment was also on purely ad-hoc basis
as the appellant was subsequently asked to undertake work of a
Laboratory Attendant till regular appointment was made. Thus, the
factual matrix of the case is rather peculiar and unusual and this fact
has been noticed and taken into consideration.
6. Counsel for the appellant had relied upon Section 25F and G of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court but this
contention was rejected on the basis of the documents and the
statement of MW-1, Mr. T.S Negi, who had stated that the appellant
was performing work of seasonal nature. Reference is also made to Ex.
WW-1/14 that the appellant was appointed a Laboratory Attendant in
the department of Zoology, University of Delhi on adhoc basis from
16th August, 1995 to 15th February, 1996. Labour Court has further
referred to Ex.MW-1/B, which shows that the appellant had appeared
for interview on 15th September, 1997 for the post of Laboratory
Attendant. Accordingly, the Industrial Adjudicator held that the
appellant was appointed as a Laboratory Attendant on adhoc
contractual basis and after regular selection he was not appointed.
Further, the appellant had again appeared in the interview for the post
of Lab Attendant on 9th April, 1998, but was not found fit. Appellant
was also given opportunity to appear in interview on 1st June, 1999 for
the post of Chowkidar for regular vacancy. Noticing the facts, the
learned single Judge in the impugned order dated 6 th November, 2009
has observed that the appellant had participated and appeared in
interviews held by the respondent university for the posts of
Laboratory Attendant, Office Attendant, Chowkidar on four occasions
i.e. 15th September, 1997, 9th April, 1998, 30th July, 1998 and 1st June,
1999. He remained unsuccessful in the interviews. Learned single
Judge has also observed that the appellant was appointed on tenure
contractual basis for a limited period for specific seasonal work.
Keeping in view the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit
in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JANUARY 13, 2011
NA/VKR
