Delhi High Court
Deep Chand vs N.D.M.C on 9 April, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 26/2013
DEEP CHAND ..... Appellant
Through:
versus
N.D.M.C. ..... Respondent
Through:Ms.Saroj Bidawat and AS.Tuisem Shimray,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 09.04.2013
Vide order dated 29/30th August 1968, the appellant was appointed as
Operation Theatre Assistant. Vide order dated 9.12.1974, in Victoria Zanana
Hospital of MCD, he was confirmed on the aforesaid post, with effect from
1.4.1972. The next promotional post available to the appellant was of O.T.
Technician. The appellant was given current duty charge of the post of O.T.
Technician with effect from 16.5.1979 and vide order dated 20.1.1984, he was
regularized on the post of O.T. Technician. Vide order dated 13.2.1984,
LPA 26/2013 page 1 of 4
the appellant was given current duty charge of the post of Technical Assistant
(OT). This was followed by an order dated 11.6.1991 promoting him to the post of
Technical Assistant (OT) on regular basis. In the meanwhile, one employee,
namely, Shiromani Joshi was promoted to the post of O.T. Technician on 8.8.1973.
Three other employees were promoted to the aforesaid post on 21/22 nd July, 1975.
This was followed by promotion of two more persons on 10.11.1976.
2. Claiming that he should have been promoted to the post of O.T. Technician
with effect from 10.8.1976 and to the post of Technical Assistant (OT) with effect
from 22.11.1983, an industrial dispute was raised by the appellant which was
referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. No reply to the Claim Petition
was filed by the respondent. The appellant filed his own affidavit in support of his
claim. The Industrial Tribunal, vide order dated 2.11.2002, rejected the claim of
the appellant, thereby answering the Award against him.
3. Being aggrieved from the said order, the appellant filed WP(C)
No.1439/2003. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated
LPA 26/2013 page 2 of 4
4.10.2012 dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant had failed to show
his entitlement for promotion to the post of O.T. Technician with effect from 1975
and to the post of Technician Assistant with effect from 22.11.1983.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. During the course of
arguments, it transpired that neither the appellant nor the respondent had filed,
before Industrial Tribunal, the documents which they later filed in the writ petition.
As a result, Industrial Tribunal had no opportunity to examine the claim of the
appellant in the light of those documents. When it is pointed out to the learned
counsel for the parties, they agree that the impugned order of the learned Single
Judge dated 4.10.2012 as well as the Award dated 2.11.2002 may be set aside and
the Industrial Tribunal may be directed to consider the claim of the appellant afresh
in the light of such documents as the parties may file before it in support of their
respective case.
5. In view of the above, we set aside the Award dated 2.11.2002 as well as the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.10.2012 and remit the matter back to the
Industrial Tribunal for passing a fresh Award after considering
LPA 26/2013 page 3 of 4
such documents as the parties may produce in support of their respective case. The
parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal on 22nd April, 2013
along with such documents which they may like to file. The Tribunal shall pass a
fresh Award in terms of this order within three months of the parties appearing
before it.
The appeal stands disposed of, in terms of this consent order.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J
APRIL 09, 2013
Ks
LPA 26/2013 page 4 of 4
