Delhi High Court
University Of Delhi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 21 April, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: April 21, 2017
+ W.P. (C) 2330/2004
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohinder JS. Rupal and Ms.
Disha Malhotra, Advocates
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Sudhir Nagar, Amicus Curiae
for respondent No.2-Devender
Sharma
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL
Vide Award of 23rd July, 2003, petitioner-Management has been
directed to reinstate respondent/workman-Devender Sharma on daily
wages and to pay him 25% of his back wages at the rate of his last drawn
wages from 20th August, 2000 till the date of his reinstatement in service.
The factual details as noted in the opening paragraph of impugned
Award need no reproduction. Suffice to note that claim of respondent-
workman was that he had worked for more than 240 days, whereas
petitioner-Management's stand is that he had not worked continuously for
a period of 240 days. Pertinently, trial court in impugned Award has
concluded that respondent-workman was not found suitable for regular
employment for the post of Library Attendant. While relying upon
evidence of respondent-workman and the evidence of Management's
witness i.e. Assistant Librarian, impugned Award has been rendered.
The finding returned in impugned Award regarding respondent-
workman having worked for more than 240 days is reproduced as under: -
"The management in its written statement admitted
that the workman have been in service of the management
from 03.09.1991 to 06.12.1992; 16.03.1993 to 30.08.1993;
and again from 20.10.1993 to 20.04.1994. MW1 also
admitted this fact in his statement. Thus, the management had
admitted averments of the workman regarding length of
service. WW1 also proved his experience certificate dated
20.04.1994 as Ex.WW1/7; dated 02.07.1995 as Ex.WW1/6;
dated 03.09.1993 as Ex.WW1/8 and another experience
certificate dated 16.04.1994 as Ex.WW1/9. Ex.WW1/9
contained that the workman had been in service of the
management from 03.09.1991 to 06.12.1992. Experience
certificate Ex.WW1/8 contained that the workman had been
in service of the management from on daily wages basis from
16.03.1993 to 30.08.1993. Ex.WW1/7 contained that he had
also been in service of the management from 21.10.1993 to
20.04.1994. WW1 in his cross-examination stated that he had
not been in continuous service with the management for a
period of 240 in calendar years 1991 and 1992 to 1994. This
stands falsified by the pleadings and evidence of the
management when the management and MW1 that the
workman had been in service from 03.09.1991 to 06.12.1992
admitted it. Therefore, it stands proved on record that the
workman had been in continuous service with the
management for a period of more than 240 days."
As per order of 19th August 2008, learned counsel for contesting
respondent No.2-Devender Sharma was duly represented by Mr. Vidhu
Upadhaya, Advocate. Thereafter, on more than half a dozen dates of
hearing, none has appeared on behalf of contesting respondent No.2.
Since the issue involved in this petition is identical to that of
W.P.(C) 2331/2004, therefore, vide last order, learned counsel for
respondent-workman appearing in W.P.(C) 2331/2004 was called upon to
assist the Court in this petition as Amicus Curiae. Copy of the paper-book
was supplied to him and the matter was posted for today for remaining
arguments.
Learned counsel for petitioner-Management assails impugned
Award on the ground that a workman is required to work continuously for
more than 240 days to continue to work as daily wager and to submit so,
reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's decision in Mohan Lal v.
Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd, AIR 1981 SC 1253. Thus, it
is submitted that petitioner's admission regarding respondent-workman
having worked intermittently for more than 240 days would not justify
continuance of respondent-workman as daily wager.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/workman-
Devender Sharma supports impugned Award and submits that he had
completed 240 days of continuous employment prior to termination of his
service on 20th April, 1994 and so, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
Nothing else is urged on behalf of either side.
After having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusal of
impugned Award, evidence on record and the decision cited, I find that
respondent-workman had worked for more than 240 days in the year
preceding his termination of service on 20th April, 1994. Considering the
fact that respondent-workman-Devender Sharma was not found fit for
regular employment, the relief granted to him of reinstatement is
modified to the extent that he would be entitled to the compensation in
lieu of his reinstatement, which is quantified at `50,000/- to be paid by
petitioner to respondent/workman-Devender Sharma within eight weeks
from today. This Court finds that in order of 19 th August, 2008
(inadvertently placed on record in W.P. (C) 2331/2004), respondent-
workman-Devender Sharma was not found entitled to any relief under
Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the reason that he
has concealed the fact that he was working in S.D. Senior Secondary
School, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi for the last 14 years i.e. since
termination of his service by petitioner herein and so grant of 25% back
wages is declined to respondent-workman.
Impugned Award stands accordingly modified and this petition
stands disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for petitioner
to ensure compliance of this judgment.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 21, 2017
s
