Arjun Kumar Giri vs Gnct Of Delhi And Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 2546 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Date of decision: 11th May, 2011

+                           W.P.(C) 3163/2011

         ARJUN KUMAR GIRI                                      ..... Petitioner
                     Through:             Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate.

                                      versus

    GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS               ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. L.K. Garg, Advocate for
                           R-1&2.
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 petitioner claims to have been employed in the year 1996 as a

Lab Assistant in the respondent no.3 Birla Vidya Niketan School. He

claims to have worked in the respondent no.3 School till the year 1999,

when according to him his services were terminated. The petitioner earlier

preferred W.P.(C) No.3606/1999 in this Court impugning the said action

of the respondent no.3 School. The petitioner continued to pursue the said

remedy even after establishment of the Delhi School Tribunal. The writ

petition was ultimately disposed of on 22 nd April, 2010 relegating the

petitioner to the Tribunal. While doing so, it was expressly observed that

the case made out by the petitioner entailed disputed questions of fact and

which the Tribunal was better equipped to address.

2. The petitioner thereafter approached the Tribunal which has on 31st

January, 2011 now dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the

purported order of the respondent no.3 School of termination of his

employment. The Tribunal has held that the petitioner has failed to prove

that he was an employee of the respondent no.3 School. The Tribunal

believed the respondent no.3 School that the petitioner had been provided

by M/s Mansi Enterprises who were on contract with the respondent no.3

School.

3. The petitioner in support of his claim has filed a number of

documents which even if were to be believed, at best show the presence of

the petitioner in the respondent no.3 School between the years 1996-1999.

However as aforesaid even the respondent no.3 School is not denying the

presence of the petitioner in the school. The question for adjudication was

as to whether the petitioner was an employee of the respondent no.3

School or not.

4. I have carefully perused the order of the Tribunal. It is nowhere

recorded that the petitioner had sought any opportunity for leading any

evidence by way of examination or cross examination of the witnesses.

The petitioner in the memorandum of the writ petition has not stated that

he had sought any such opportunity or that the same was denied to him.

This is all the more surprising in view of the express observation in the

order disposing of the earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner to the

effect that the case made out by the petitioner entails disputed questions of

fact.

5. The Tribunal, in the absence of any appointment letter or salary slip

with the petitioner held the petitioner to have not established a relationship

of employer-employee with the respondent no.3 School. I have also

enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether the respondent no.3

School is issuing appointment letters to others working in the respondent

no.3 School. The counsel states that he has no instructions in this regard.

Only if the petitioner had sought to cross examine the purported

signatories of the documents filed before this Court and which are stated to

have been filed before the Tribunal also, could the explanation if any with

respect thereto would have been given and could have been weighed by the

Tribunal and by this Court.

6. The finding returned by the Tribunal of the petitioner not being an

employee of the respondent no.3 School is a finding of fact on the basis of

the documents produced before the Tribunal. It is the settled position in

law that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would not interfere with

the findings of fact of the Tribunal even if erroneous unless any perversity

or unreasonableness is shown therein (See (a) Syed Yakoob v. K.S.

Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477; (b) Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. The

Presiding Officer, Labour Court ILR (1976) 1 Del 565; (c) DTC Vs.

Delhi Administration ILR (1973) 1 Del 838; (d) Jawahar Singh Vs.

Financial Commissioner MANU/DE/8396/2007 & (e) Kishan Chand

Bhatia Vs. UOI MANU/DE/0265/2005). The petitioner without making

any efforts to prove his case, cannot be granted any further indulgence.

The matter is quite stale now being over 12 years old and for this reason

also it is not deemed expedient to grant any fresh opportunity to the

petitioner to prove his case.

There is no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. No order as

to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 11, 2011 pp..