Delhi High Court
Manish Kumar vs East Delhi Muncipal Corpration on 5 May, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: May 05, 2017
(i) + W.P.(C) 3917/2017 & C.M. 17269-70/2017
MANISH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal & Mr. Sachin
Kumar, Advocates
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNCIPAL CORPRATION ..... Respondent
Through: Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate
(ii) + W.P.(C) 3920/2017 & C.M. 17279-80/2017
SACHIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal & Mr. Sachin
Kumar, Advocates
Versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL
1. In the above captioned two petitions, challenge is to the impugned
order of 27th February, 2017, vide which petitioners' application for
interim order has been dismissed by Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma
Court, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") while holding
that grant of any interim order would amount to prejudging the case in
favour of petitioner, without adjudication of the main dispute.
2. Since challenge to the impugned order in these two petitions is on
identical grounds, therefore, these two petitions have been heard together
and are being decided by this common order.
3. To assail the impugned order, learned counsel for petitioners relies
upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in All India General
Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd.) Vs. T.C.I.L. & Ors. 81 (1999) DLT 225 to
submit that Tribunal has the power to pass interim Award. Reliance is
also placed upon a order of Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)
12602/2006, Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs.
Govt. of India, of 24th September, 2008 whereby interim Award of
`30,000/- has been passed. Counsel for petitioners submits that the
aforesaid order has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA
684/2008, Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs. Govt.
of India, on 11th November, 2008 and by Supreme Court in Hongkong
and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited Vs. Government of India &
Anr. (2009) 13 SCC 771. Petitioners' counsel further submits that claim
for regularization was made by petitioners way back in the year 2014 and
for the post of Assistant Malaria Inspectors, there are about 400
vacancies, which have been advertized vide Notification of 24th January,
2017 (Annexure P-6) and on interview basis, regular appointments are
being made, much to the detriment of petitioners, who have already
rendered seven years of service and they have a good case for
regularization of their service and if these vacancies are filled up, then
their case pending before Tribunal would be rendered infructuous. So, it
is submitted on behalf of petitioners that impugned order be set aside and
a direction be issued to Tribunal to decide the pending petition within a
month or so and till then, status quo regarding employment of petitioners
be maintained and a direction be issued to respondents to keep two posts
vacant for petitioners.
4. On the other hand, counsel for respondents submits that petitioners
are contractual employees and are not entitled to regularization of their
service and that interviews for the post of Assistant Malaria Inspectors
have been already held and the result is going to be declared soon and any
interim order restraining filling up of posts/ vacancies would be to the
detriment of prospective candidates and so, these petitions deserve to be
dismissed. Nothing else is urged on behalf of either side.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the material
on record, I find that there is no doubt that an interim Award can be
made. In Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (supra),
interim Award of `30,000/- was made in view of the fact that employee
therein had rendered twenty years of service. Though petitioners have
purportedly rendered seven years of service but the claim for their
regularization is still sub-judice and outcome of pending case before the
Tribunal cannot be prejudged. Learned Tribunal has rightly rejected
petitioner's application for interim relief, as regular appointments to the
post of Assistant Malaria Inspectors cannot be forestalled by keeping the
posts vacant, as interviews for these posts has been already held and
result are likely to be declared soon. This Court is not inclined to give
any interim Award in a case of regularization of service. Otherwise also,
interim directions in a case like instant one are not warranted, for the
reason that in the event of petitioners succeeding before the Tribunal,
they can be adequately compensated by fresh absorption on the posts
which fall vacant in future or they can be compensated. However, let the
Tribunal make all the endavours to decide the pending case for
regularization within a month or so.
6. In view of the aforesaid, finding no substance in these petitions and
applications, they are dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their
own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 05, 2017
r
