Delhi High Court
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Ram Niwas on 20 November, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 20th November, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 1981/2011
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. M.M. Sudan, Advocate.
Versus
RAM NIWAS ..... Respondent
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner Management has
assailed the award dated 29.12.2005, whereby the learned Tribunal
directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent/workman in service
from 15.05.1999 along with continuity of service and full back wages.
2. Mr. M.M. Sudan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner Management submits that vide order dated 29.08.2000, the
Central Government referred the claim of the respondent/workman
with following reference:-
"Whether the action of the management of Vibhagiya Tar
Ghar merged with Telecom Department, Rampur, in
regard to terminating the services of Shri Ram Niwas,
Part Time Sweeper w.e.f. 16.05.1999 (sick 15.05.1999)
is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled and from what date."
3. Learned counsel submits as per the reference itself, admitted
case of the respondent/workman was that he was a Part Time Sweeper
working with the petitioner Management. Thus, in such eventuality,
instead of granting any relief whatsoever, the claim petition filed by
the respondent/workman would have been dismissed by the learned
Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel further submits that in the claim petition, the
respondent/workman has admitted that initially he was working for one
hour. Thereafter, he continued to perform his duty for two hours daily
and till his termination he was a part time worker working two hours in
a day. However, the petitioner Management submits that the petitioner
Management could not lead its evidence before the learned Tribunal
due to unavoidable reasons and the learned Tribunal has passed the
award ex parte, therefore, the present award may be set aside and the
case be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for re-adjudication after
giving opportunities to both the parties.
5. The fact remains that the respondent/workman claimed that he
continued to perform his duty with full devotion and dedication upto
15.05.1999 without any complaint either from the public or from his
superiors or colleagues. Thus, he remained in service for more than
ten years. However, the petitioner Management terminated his service
on 15.05.1999 without issuing any notice and in an arbitrary manner
and not allowed to perform his duty thereafter. Moreover, a new hand
was employed in his place. During the proceedings before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dehradun, it was admitted by the
petitioner Management that the workman was initially appointed by the
Vibhagiya Tar Ghar, Rampur, which was at that time an independent
and separate entity and later on came under the control of Telecom
Regional Manager, Rampur, U.P.
6. In view of the facts recorded above, it is established that initially
the respondent/workman was appointed as a part-time worker, on the
basis of an hour daily, with effect from 19.02.1987. He continued to
perform his duty to the satisfaction of his superiors. In this connection,
a certificate dated 16.01.1989 was issued by the petitioner
Management, Rampur (Office Incharge, DTO), Rampur, UP, the same
is Ex. WW1/D. Thereafter, vide Ex.WW1/E, the Department of
Telecommunications recommended the name of the
respondent/workman to the petitioner Management to be appointed for
aforesaid post. On the basis of the aforesaid recommendation, vide
letter dated 07.03.1989, respondent/ workman was appointed by the
petitioner Management on the post of Sweeper on part-time basis and
was posted in the office of Telegraph at Rampur. To this effect the
letter dated 07.03.1989 is Ex.WW1/F. Thereafter vide letter No.E-
18/Daily Worker/Ch-5 dated 20.05.1994, issued from the office of
SST, Bareilly Division, working hours in respect of part-time
employees, including the respondent, were increased from two hours to
five hours daily, copy of the same is Ex.WW1/G. Moreover, vide
memo dated 16.09.2009, the workers working for four hours or more
than that on part time basis have been regularized. However, the case
of the respondent was not taken up. To this effect, no communication
was sent to the respondent.
7. Undisputedly, no show cause notice was given to the
respondent/workman before terminating his services on 15.05.1999 by
the petitioner Management. The respondent completed 10 years in
service before termination. Moreover, the petitioner Management
appeared before the learned Tribunal and sought adjournments on
31.01.2005, 24.03.2005, 22.05.2005 and 20.07.2005, despite that the
petitioner Management failed to file its written statement and led no
evidence.
8. In view of the above discussion, I find no discrepancy in the
order dated 29.12.2005 passed by the learned Tribunal.
9. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed being without any
merit.
10. No order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 20, 2014
sb/jg
