Delhi High Court
Sunita Devi vs The Management Of M/S Iit Haus Khas ... on 13 February, 2014
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on February 13, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 2697/2012
SUNITA DEVI
..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.N.S.Dalal, Advocate with
Mr.Amit Rana, Advocate
versus
THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S IIT HAUS KHAS NEW DELHI
..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Subhash Chand, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)
1. The writ petition has been filed by the wife of the claimant before
the Labour Court namely Sunita Devi against the award dated
September 09, 2004 passed in Industrial Dispute No. 1292/95 (old I.D.
No. 472/94) whereby the Labour Court held that the claimant is not
entitled to any relief.
2. I may state here that during the course of the proceedings before
the Labour Court, the husband of the petitioner i.e.the workman had
expired. The petitioner being a legal representative of the workman, had
got herself impleaded in the said proceedings.
3. The case of the claimant before the Labour Court was that he was
in employment of the respondent with effect from May 26, 1989 as
'Fitter' on daily wage basis on Rs. 39.05 per day. According to him, his
services were terminated on July 15, 1992 illegally and unjustifiably by
the respondent.
4. The respondent had opposed the claim on the ground that the
workman was very much irregular and he never worked continuously.
They had further stated that the workman had not worked for more than
150 days in a year.
5. Two issues were framed by the Labour Court, (1) whether the
management is not an industry and (2) as per the terms of reference.
6. Insofar as the issue No. 2 is concerned, the Labour Court was of
the view that the workman had not worked for 240 days, primarily on the
ground that the workman had failed to prove that he had worked for
more than 240 days in a calendar year.
7. Mr. N.S.Dalal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that such a conclusion of the Labour Court is perverse. He had
drawn my attention to the certificate issued by IIT, wherein, the
following is mentioned:
"It is certified that Shri Vijay Kumar S/o Shri
Musani Lal has worked in the Electrical Sub-Division of
Works Department of this Institute as Gittiman on daily
wages for the period from 23.1.90 to 1.8.90 (150 days) @
Rs. 31.05 per day. His work has been found satisfactory"
I wish him all success in life.
8. He has also drawn my attention to the note that was filed by the
IIT which was before the Labour Court, wherein, they had admitted that
for the period between 01.07.1991 till 31.12.1991, the workman had
worked for 137 days and also for the period between 01.01.1992 to
31.07.1992, the claimant had worked for 147 days.
9. According to Mr. N.S. Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner,
the 240 days has to be seen not with regard to the calendar year, but for a
period of 12 months preceding the date of termination. According to
him, if the number of days put in by workman is seen from 01.07.1991
till 30.06.1992, the workman had completed 240 days. Hence, it is a case
where the respondent had not followed the procedures laid down under
Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such, the
termination is illegal.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that the engagement was purely temporary as and when
there is a work. He concedes to the fact that the workman had worked
for 240 days in 12 months preceding the date of termination.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view
that the conclusion of the Labour Court is contrary to the record filed by
the IIT. The note as filed by the respondent shows that between the
period 01.09.1991 to 30.06.1992, the workman had actually worked for
240 days. In view of this, the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court
is not correct. If that being the position, the provisions of Section 25F
having not been followed, the termination of the respondent is illegal.
Accordingly, I set aside the order of the Labour Court dated September
09, 2004. Since the claimant/workman has expired, no relief of
reinstatement can be given. The only relief that can be considered and
granted by this Court is the grant of compensation. In the given facts
where the claimant had worked between the period 26.05.1989 to
14.07.1992 even though, not continuous, and the workman having
expired, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation be granted to the
petitioner, who is the widow of the workman. I direct the respondent to
pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner within
a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
12. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
13. No costs.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 13, 2014
akb
