Delhi Development Authority vs Dayaram
2014 Latest Caselaw 6106 Del

$~9

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                        Judgment delivered on 24th November, 2014

+       W.P.(C) 1666/2014
        DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                  ..... Petitioner
                         Represented by: Mr.Sanjeev Aggarwal,
                                         Standing counsel with Mr.
                                         Hem Kumar, Adv.

                          Versus

        DAYARAM                                          ..... Respondent

Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Aggarwal, Mr.Sachin Kumar and Ms.Neelam Tiwari, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 07.01.2014

passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner (South District) whereby the

petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,57,053/-.

2. Undisputedly the impugned order was passed in pursuance to award

dated 10.01.1995 whereby the learned Tribunal reinstated the

respondent/workman in service with full back wages.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the aforenoted award vide

W.P.(C) No.406/1996, which was dismissed in default vide order dated

11.11.2002. The said petition has not been restored till dated, thus the order

dated 11.11.2002 has attained finality.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the award passed by the

Industrial Tribunal cannot be allowed to be executed for the reason that the

respondent was in employment on a forged appointment letter.

5. However, this issue has been adjudicated by the Tribunal saying that

the respondent/workman did not get the opportunity of being heard.

Accordingly, the learned Tribunal held the termination was improper and

illegal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they did not have the

record of the respondent/workman as was seized by CBI in a case; therefore,

the petitioner could not initiate the proper departmental inquiry and thus

could not defend the matter before the learned Tribunal. Despite, learned

Tribunal ought not to have directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman

in service with back wages.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Secretary,

Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions vs.

Pindiga Sridhar & Ors. (2007) 13 SCC 352, para 7 of the same reads as

under:-

"7. The High Court on the basis of the erroneous view upset the well-merited judgment of the learned Single Judge. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a straitjacket formula. Their application depends upon the facts and circumstance of each case. To sustain the complaint of the violation of principles of natural justice one must establish that he was prejudiced for non-observance of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, the fact on which the appellant terminated the services of the respondent appointed on compassionate ground was admitted by the respondent himself that when he applied for the post on compassionate ground by his application dated 6-5-1996, his mother was in service. So also when he secured the appointment by an order dated 22.11.2002 his wife was in service since 3-8-1997 as Extension Officer in Rural Development and later on promoted as Mandal Parishad Development Officer at the time when he was appointed on compassionate ground. These facts clearly disclose that the appointment on compassionate ground was secured by playing fraud. Fraud cloaks everything. In such admitted facts, there was no necessity of issuing show-cause notice to him. The view of the High Court that termination suffers from the non-observance of the principles of natural justice is, therefore, clearly erroneous. In our view, in the given facts of this case, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the respondent. The respondent could not have improved his case even if a show-cause notice was issued to him."

8. Admittedly, the Award dated 10.01.1995 is not under challenge in the

present petition. Therefore, the facts of the case of Pindiga Sridhar (supra)

are not applicable in this case.

9. Moreover, the award cannot be challenged in execution proceedings.

10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

11. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to comply with the execution

order within four weeks failing which the petitioner shall be liable to pay

interest @ 12% per annum for the delayed period.

SURESH KAIT, J NOVEMBER 24, 2014 mr