Shri Rambir vs Keshav Mahavidyalaya And Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6699 Del

$~R-15

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                Judgment delivered on: 11th December, 2014

+       W.P.(C) 5797/2012

SHRI RAMBIR                                          ..... Petitioner
                             Represented by: Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal and
                             Ms. Neelam Tiwari, Advs.

                        Versus

KESHAV MAHAVIDYALAYA AND ORS.           ..... Respondents
                Represented by: Mr. Rajat Arora, Adv. for
                R1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction thereby directing the respondent no. 3 to refer the dispute pertaining to regularization of service of the petitioner to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.

2. Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had joined the services of respondent no.1 w.e.f 16.08.1994. However, his services were illegally terminated w.e.f 19.03.1997. Being aggrieved, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute vide ID No. 810/1999. Same was decided vide award dated 06.04.2002, whereby the termination of the

petitioner was held illegal and unjustified and he was held entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits with full back wages.

3. Being aggrieved, respondent no. 1 challenged the aforesaid award before this Court in W.P.(C) 916/2003. Same is pending for adjudication. Meanwhile, the petitioner raised industrial dispute for regularisation of his service with respondent no. 1. Same has been rejected by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 vide impugned order dated 16.01.2012 by stating that the matter is subjudice in the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 916/2003. However, the petitioner has already been reinstated in service w.e.f 07.03.2005 and working as a daily wager pursuant to the order passed by this Court.

4. Mr. Aggarwal submits that earlier the petitioner raised industrial dispute against the illegal termination of his service which has been decided in his favour and same has been challenged by the respondent no. 1, which is pending for adjudication.

5. The issue of regularization has nothing to do with the earlier issues raised by the petitioner. Moreover, the present issue has to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal and not by the Labour Court.

6. Mr. Aggarwal further submitted that if the impugned order is accepted, then the fate of the petitioner will not be decided for the reason if the aforesaid petition is decided against the respondent no. 1, they may challenge in Appeal and may take the matter up to the Supreme Court, eventually, the petitioner cannot raise his legal rights

available in the Act. Therefore, since the issue is totally different, then respondent nos. 2 and 3 has no power to keep the petitioner in lurch.

7. Ld. Counsel further submits that powers under the Act with respondent nos. 2 and 3 are very limited, whether to send a reference or to reject the same, however, they cannot keep the issue in abeyance. The impugned order is of that nature.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Rajat Arora, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 submits that though he is not coming in the way of the powers of respondent nos. 2 and 3, however, if the respondent no. 1 succeed in the W.P.(C) 916/2003, then the petitioner has no case. Therefore, let this court wait for the outcome of the aforesaid petition.

9. I find force in the submission of the ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 to the extent that if the respondent no. 1 succeeds in the above- noted petition, then certainly, the petitioner has no case.

10. The fact remains that the decision in above noted petition would not be final, however, that would be subject to challenge further by either of the party. Therefore, the petitioner should not be compelled to wait till then.

11. Therefore, order dated 16.01.2012 is hereby set aside by directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to send the reference of the petitioner within three weeks for regularization to the ld. Tribunal for adjudication.

12. The parties concerned shall be at liberty to raise all the issues before the Tribunal.

13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in the above terms.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE)

DECEMBER 11, 2014/jg