The Officer-In-Charge, Central ... vs The Presiding Officer & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4075 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 11th July, 2012

+                                W.P.(C) 204/1998

       THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, CENTRAL
       ARID ZONE RESEARCH INSTITUTE                          ..... Petitioner
                    Through: None.

                          Versus
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR.       ..... Respondents
                  Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                                 JUDGMENT

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the award dated 13.02.1997 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi on the following reference:

"Whether the action of the management of Central Arid Zone Research Institute Pali in terminating the services of Smt. Kukoo Labourer at their farm at Pali w.e.f. 31.12.85 is justified? If not, to what relief is the worker entitled?"

and though holding the disengagement of the respondent No.2 Smt. Kukoo resident of 46-D, Gandhi Nagar, Pali Marwar, Rajasthan by the petitioner to be amounting to retrenchment for which no notice or notice pay was given, for the reason of the termination being 10 years old and there being no material as to whether the respondent No.2 workman had remained employed through out, awarding lump sum compensation of `10,000/- only

to the respondent No.2 workman.

2. Notice of this petition was issued and vide ex parte order dated 15.01.1998, the operation and execution of the award stayed on the condition of the petitioner depositing the sum of `10,000/- in this Court. The respondent No.2 workman failed to appear despite service and on 17.07.2000 Rule was issued in the petition and the interim order made absolute. Rule notice was again issued to the respondent No.2 workman on 17.02.2006 but the respondent No.2 workman again failed to appear despite service. The counsel for the petitioner also did not appear when this case was called earlier on 23.08.2011, 15.12.2011, 02.01.2012, 20.03.2012 and 02.07.2012.

3. Even though the counsel for the petitioner has not appeared today also and the petition is thus liable to be dismissed for non prosecution but considering that Rule was issued and further considering that the respondent No.2 workman is a resident of outside Delhi and perhaps for the reason of the award being for a meager sum of `10,000/- has chosen not to contest the present proceedings, rather than dismissing this petition in default, it is deemed appropriate to allow the same and to set aside the award. While doing so, the contention of the petitioner in the memorandum of petition that though the respondent No.2 had worked for more than 240 days but was engaged against project work and thus her disengagement cannot be said to be retrenchment is also worth noticing. In this regard, I may also notice that it is the admitted position that the respondent No.2 workman had worked for the petitioner in a project earlier at Ajmer and though had raised a dispute then also but had settled the same with the petitioner. For this reason also, I am satisfied that there is sufficient ground in law also for setting aside the

award. The petition is therefore allowed. The award supra is set aside / quashed. The amount of `10,000/- deposited by the petitioner in this Court pursuant to the interim orders, together with interest if any accrued thereon be refunded to the petitioner.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 11, 2012 'gsr'