Delhi High Court
Sohan Lal vs Mcd on 30 May, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th May, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 1222/2011
SOHAN LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
MCD ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may No.
be allowed to see the judgment?
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 petition impugns the award dated 8th April, 2010 of the
Industrial Tribunal on the following reference:-
"(1) Whether the services of Sh. Sohan Lal S/o Sh.
Mam Chand have been terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the Management, and if so, to what sum
of money as monetary relief along with consequential
benefits in terms of existing law/Govt. Notifications and
to what other relief is he entitled and what directions
are necessary in this respect?"
against the petitioner workman.
2. It was the case of the petitioner workman that he had worked with
the respondent MCD since the year 1983 till the year 1995. The Industrial
Adjudicator however held that the petitioner workman had been unable to
prove that he had worked since 1983 and on the basis of evidence on
record returned a finding that the petitioner had worked in the respondent
MCD as a daily wager only in the year 1995 and had not even completed
240 days of employment preceding his dis-engagement, to invite Section
25 F of the ID Act. The counsel for the petitioner states that the finding is
of the petitioner workman having worked for 110 days only. He however
contends that his grievance today is not of violation of Section 25F but the
writ petition is pressed on the violation of Section 25G & H of the ID Act
and on which no finding whatsoever has been returned by the Industrial
Adjudicator.
3. At the outset, it may be noticed that the Industrial Adjudicator has
recorded that though dis-engagement is of 1995 but dispute was raised
after ten years only in the year 2005. The Industrial Adjudicator
nevertheless proceeded to return a finding on the merits of the disputes
also. No explanation whatsoever of the long span of ten years after which
the dispute was raised is offered in the petition also and the counsel for the
petitioner on enquiry orally states that the petitioner workman in the
interregnum was visiting the office of the respondent MCD.
4. It is even otherwise felt that the finding of the Industrial Adjudicator
of the petitioner having not worked for 240 days is a finding of fact not
ordinarily interfereable in writ jurisdiction. Reference in this regard may be
made to Workmen of English Electric Co. of India Ltd. v. Presiding
Officer (1990) 2 SCC 18, State of Haryana v. Devi Dutt (2006) 13 SCC
32 and to judgment dated 19 th May, 2011 of this Court in W.P.(C)
No.3375/2011 titled Shis Ram v. Chief General Manager, SBI.
5. Though the counsel for the petitioner has contended that the muster
roll of workmen in employment from 1983 onwards would have been with
the respondent MCD only and ought to have been produced but was not
produced but it was for the petitioner to summon the said records to prove
his case and which has not been done.
6. As far as the argument of Section 25G & H is concerned, it has been
enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether a case on that basis
was made out before the Industrial Adjudicator. The counsel for the
petitioner is only able to draw attention to para 5(x) of the claim petition
where a reference is made to Sections 25 G & H. The counsel otherwise
admits that no plea or evidence of anybody else, who may have been
employed after the petitioner and whose services may have been retained,
has been made out.
7. The counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the respondent
MCD has a policy of regularization. It has been enquired whether the said
policy applies to the workmen who have completed more than 240 days of
employment or also to those who may have worked for a lesser period.
Again neither any such ground has been raised in the petition nor
documents filed in this regard.
8. The petitioner cannot in writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India make out a new case than what was pleaded before
the Industrial Adjudicator. No case of illegality owing to violation of
Section 25G & H having been established or urged before the Industrial
Adjudicator, the same cannot be allowed to be urged for the first time in
these proceedings especially without any basis whatsoever.
There is no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MAY 30, 2011
pp..
