Delhi High Court
The Manager Central Warehousing ... vs Veer Singh D Through Lrs & Ors. on 21 March, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21.03.2025
+ LPA 419/2024
THE MANAGER CENTRAL WAREHOUSING
CORPORATION .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajiv Shukla, Ms. Shivani
Kapoor and Mr. Sanjay Kumar,
Advocates.
versus
VEER SINGH D THROUGH LRS & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Syed Hasan Isfahani and
Ms. Shifa, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 51 days in
filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The application stands disposed of.
LPA 419/2024 & CM APPL. 31028/2024
3. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the
Judgment dated 09.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in W.P.(C) No. 2677/2011, titled The Manager, Central
Warehousing Corporation v. Veer Singh & 19 Ors., dismissing the
writ petition filed by the appellant.
4. The appellant had filed the above writ petition challenging the
Award dated 30.11.2010 passed by the learned Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-I, New Delhi (herein after referred to as
'Tribunal') in ID no. 23/2009 directing the appellant to pay to the
respondent nos.4, 8, 16 and 19 compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- each,
while a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was directed to be paid to the each
remaining respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Impugned
Order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from an error
apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the learned Single
Judge has attributed a finding to the learned CGIT which in fact was
to the contrary. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to Paragraph
40 of the Impugned Order vis-a-vis Paragraph 37 of the award passed
by the learned CGIT. We herein quote the two paragraphs referred by
the learned counsel for the appellant:
a) Paragraph 40 of the Impugned Order
"40. The findings arrived at in the impugned
award have been reasoned by analysing inter
alia that the workmen had originally been
selected by the petitioner corporation only
after proper interviews, screening tests and
verification of documents, followed by
subsequent post-hire specialised training in
order to make them proficient for the position
they had been hired for. Hence, the learned
Industrial Tribunal in the impugned award as
reproduced herein above, opined that the
workmen are entitled to be paid compensation
in lieu of reinstatement."
b) Paragraph 37 of the award dated 30.11.2010:
"37. Claimants project that a notice was
displayed at I.C.D. Tuglakabad detailing that
drivers were required by the Corporation.
Rambir Sharma unfolds on that issue that he
read an advertisement published in
"Hindustan Times" and applied for the post of
driver. He went on to depose that a notice was
also displayed at I.C.D. Tuglakabad, New
Delhi. However, he concedes that no interview
letter was issued in his favour. He detailed
that he used to visit office of the Corporation
to enquire about his appointment. A letter was
given to him, deputing him to Bangalore for
training. On that issue Ram Bachan Singh
announced that he reached I.C.D. Tuglakabad,
where he was interviewed and appointed. His
interview was taken a week prior to 27.11.99,
the date when he was sent to Bangalore for
training. He could not spell as to whether any
interview letter was issued in his favour or not.
Kundan Singh also recites the events in the
same vein, detailing that a notice was
displayed at notice board of I.C.D.
Tuglakabad. According to him no interview
letter was issued in his favour. However, he
claims that he was interviewed and appointed.
Shri Ram Kumar deposed that he came to
know about vacancies of driver with the
Corporation from Rambir. He was interviewed
and sent to Bangalore for training. He feigned
ignorance on the propositions as to whether
an application was moved by him for his
appointment as driver. Shri Rambir Singh also
claims to be interviewed here in Delhi around
20.11.99. He concedes that no interview letter
was issued in his favour. Gaya Baksh also
projects those very facts. Thus out of facts
unfolded by the claimants it emerge over the
record that they could not establish that
vacancies were advertised by the Corporation
for appointment of driver. None of them claim
to have submitted an application for
appointment as driver. They simply project
that they tendered their bio data(s) and were
interviewed for the post. According to them
they reached I.C.D. Tuglakabad, on a date of
their convenience and choice, where they were
interviewed and appointed. No inland
clearance depot is/or was run by the
Corporation at Tuglakabad, deposes Shri
Tygi. His evidence on that fact remained
unassoiled. Thus it is emerging that the
claimants coined a story of submitting
applications at ICD Tuglakabad, facing an
interview there and got appointment as
drivers. Display of a notice at ICD
Tuglakabad for recruitment of drivers is a fact
which is contrary to ordinary course of events,
since absence of inland clearance depot at
Tuglakabad robes away veracity of those facts.
Admittedly no post of tractor trailer driver was
available with the Corporation. Hence
engagement of the claimant as driver(s) by the
Corporation can not be said to be in
consonance with recruitment rules. Thus it is
emerging over the record that no regular
procedure for recruitment of claimants as
driver(s) was followed. Their engagement was
dehors the recruitment rules. Hence their
reinstatement in service would amount to back
door entry in Government job."
6. A reading of the above would clearly shows that while the
learned CGIT had disbelieved the claim of the respondents that they
had been appointed by the appellant pursuant to an interview and
selection process conducted by the appellant, the learned Single Judge
has upheld the Impugned Award by holding that the learned CGIT has
held that the interview and the selection process were conducted by
the appellant. This is clearly a contradictory finding and an error
apparent on the face of the record.
7. Though the learned counsel for the respondent submits that
dehors the above contradiction, there are other reasons for which the
Impugned Award passed by the learned CGIT is liable to be sustained,
we find that as there is an error apparent on the face of the record in
the Impugned Order passed by the learned Single Judge and as the
learned Single Judge, in the Impugned Order has not tested these
submissions in the first instance, we should leave it to the learned
Single Judge to first consider the pleas of the respondents on merit.
8. We accordingly, set aside the Impugned Order dated
09.02.2024 and restore the Writ Petition to its original number.
9. The parties shall appear before the learned Single Judge on 07th
April, 2025.
10. We request the learned Single Judge to expedite the hearing of
the Writ Petition keeping in view that the Writ Petition is of the
vintage of 2011 and had earlier been decided but unfortunately we had
to remand the same back for a fresh consideration.
11. The appeal along with pending application is disposed of in the
above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
MARCH 21, 2025
SC/IK
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
