Delhi High Court
Moh. Shakeel Akhtar vs Mcd on 16 September, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~R32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:16th September, 2014
+ W.P.(C) No. 213/2011
MOH. SHAKEEL AKHTAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by:Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal,
Adv.
Versus
MCD ..... Respondent
Represented by:Ms. Saroj Bidawat,
Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner seeks direction for setting aside the impugned
order dated 19.01.2009 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator in ID
No. 229/1995.
2. Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that terms of reference vide notification No. F-
24(3427)/94/Lab.31160-65 dated 28.09.95 was as under:-
"Whether the services of Sh. Mohd. Shakeel Akhtar
have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by
the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled
and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
3. Accordingly, learned Presiding Officer framed the issues as
under:-
"(i) Whether the services of the workman were terminated
illegally and/or unjustifiably?
(ii) Relief."
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that the issue before the Tribunal was whether the services of the
workman have been terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the
management, however, not decided the same.
5. On perusal of impugned order, the learned Tribunal while
taking the shelter of the cases of State of Karnataka and others vs.
Uma Devi (3) and others reported as (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Ajay
Kumar Sharma vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court reported as
133(2006) DLT 24, the learned Tribunal has recorded that the
services of the petitioner were not terminated illegally and
unjustifiably by the management. Accordingly, the issue noted
above decided against the petitioner and in favour of the
management.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of
Anoop Sharma vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1
Panipat (Haryana) decided on 09.04.2010 by the Apex Court herein
held as under:-
"19. The judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma
Devi (supra) and other decisions in which this Court
considered the right of casual, daily wage, temporary
and ad hoc employees to be regularised/continued in
service or paid salary in the regular time scale,
appears to have unduly influenced the High Court's
approach in dealing with the appellant's challenge to
the award of the Labour Court. In our view, none of
those judgments has any bearing on the interpretation
of Section 25F of the Act and employer's obligation
to comply with the conditions enumerated in that
section."
7. Keeping in view the issues before the Labour Court and the
settled position of law, I am of the considered opinion that case of
Uma Devi (supra) is applicable on employees under the government
employment and not to the workmen which has to be dealt under the
Industrial Disputes Act.
8. Accordingly, award dated 19.01.2009 is hereby set aside.
9. The matter is remanded to the concerned Industrial Tribunal to
decide afresh by giving opportunities to both parties.
10. Accordingly, parties are directed to appear before the
concerned learned Industrial Tribunal on 24th of September, 2014 for
direction.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Tribunal.
12. The petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to
costs.
SURESH KAIT, J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014/nk
