Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 802 (DEL)

RAJ SINGH v. LABOUR COURT NO. 8 DELHI

2003-08-27

MUKUL MUDGAL

body2003
Mukul Mudgal, J. ( 1 ) RULE has already been issued in this writ petition on 10th May, 2000. The matter is taken up today for final hearing. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner states that this matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 1567 of 2003 entitled Gopal Vs. MCD and Another, passed on 29th April, 2003. ( 3 ) THE impugned Award dated 13th April, 1998 has rejected the claim of the petitioner who sought reinstatement with the respondent no. 2, Flood Control and Drainage department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. ( 4 ) THE petitioner s claim has been dismissed by the impugned Award dated 13th April, 1998 mainly on the ground which reads as under: "in this way the workman has not completed 240 days of service and he cannot claim the benefits of Section 25f or other provisions of the Industrial disputes Act. " ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has questioned the aforesaid finding of the impugned award in so far as it relates to the other provisions of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Gopal Vs. MCD and Another (Supra), where this issue has been dealt with after relying upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme court in Samishta Dubey Vs. City Board, etawah and Another (1999 II AD (SC) 257. The Hon ble Supreme Court has laid down in the aforesaid judgment that even those workmen who have not put in 240 days of service had industrial rights under the Act such as recourse to Section 25 and Section 25h. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Samishta dubey s case (supra) reads under: "we shall next deal with he point whether, in case employees junior to the appellant were retained, the directions issued by the Labour Court could be treated as valid. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Samishta dubey s case (supra) reads under: "we shall next deal with he point whether, in case employees junior to the appellant were retained, the directions issued by the Labour Court could be treated as valid. Section 6-P of the U. P. Act (which corresponds to section 25g of the Central Act of 1947) states that where any workman in an industrial establishment is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment - in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workmen in this behalf - the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workmen who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded, the employer retrenches any other person. Now this provision is not controlled by conditions as to length of service contained in Section 6 (N) (which corresponds to Section 25f of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ). Section 6-P does not require any particular period of continuous service as required by section 6-N. In Kamlesh Singh Vs. Presiding Officer [1986 Suppl. SCC 679) in a matter which arose under this very Section 6-P of the U. P. Act, it was so held. Hence the High Court was wrong in relying on the fact that the appellant had put in only three and a half months of service and in denying relief. [see also in this connection central Bank of India Vs. S. Satyam and others 1996 (5) SCC 419 ]. ( 6 ) THUS it is clear that apart from rights available under Section 25f of the Act, other rights are still available to a workman who have not completed 240 days of service. In view of the aforesaid position of law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court which has been followed in the judgment of this Court in Gopal Vs. MCD and Another (Supra), delivered on 29th April, 2003, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The Award dated 13th april, 1998 in so far as it holds that the petitioner/workman could not claim the benefits of other provisions of the Act apart from Section 25-F cannot be sustained and accordingly the Award is set aside to that extent only. MCD and Another (Supra), delivered on 29th April, 2003, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The Award dated 13th april, 1998 in so far as it holds that the petitioner/workman could not claim the benefits of other provisions of the Act apart from Section 25-F cannot be sustained and accordingly the Award is set aside to that extent only. The matter is accordingly remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh disposal of the matter relating to the other provisions of the Act apart from Section 25-F. ( 7 ) THE writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. ( 8 ) PARTIES to appear before the Labour court.- VIII, Delhi on 17th November, 2003 for directions.