Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 516 (DEL)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. SATISH KUMAR

2004-07-20

MADAN B.LOKUR

body2004
( 1 ) THE Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 12th March, 2001 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal No. Ill in I. D. No. 638/90. The question referred for adjudication is as follows:- "whether the services of Sh. Satish kumar have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably and if not to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" ( 2 ) ACCORDINGLY to the Respondent workman he worked with the Petitioner as a Ward Boy on daily rate/casual/muster roll basis in a hospital from 18th September, 1984 till his termination from service on 9th July, 1986. According to the Respondent workman his services were terminated without assigning any reason and in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act ). ( 3 ) THE Petitioner had contended before the learned Tribunal that the Respondent workman was engaged as a daily wager against a leave vacancy and since a regular employee was later appointed, the services of the Respondent workman were no longer required. There was no dispute with regard to the period of his employment. ( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal accepted the period of work put in by the Respondent workman and from the dates mentioned in the impugned award, it is clear that there were artificial breaks of a couple of days in between, otherwise the period of employment was continuous. It was also noted by the learned tribunal that the work was such that it was continuous in nature namely that of a Ward boy or a Safai Karamchari. ( 5 ) THE learned Tribunal noted the provisions of Fifth Schedule to the Act which deals with unfair labour practices. Item No. 10 thereof relates to unfair labour practices on the part of the employer. This reads as follows: "to employ workmen as "badlis", casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen. " ( 6 ) QUITE clearly, even if the case of the petitioner is accepted and it is found that the respondent workman was engaged against a leave vacancy, he was continued as such for a period of almost two years. The action of the Petitioner, therefore, amounts to an unfair labour practice and requires to be strongly discouraged particularly since the petitioner is the State. The action of the Petitioner, therefore, amounts to an unfair labour practice and requires to be strongly discouraged particularly since the petitioner is the State. ( 7 ) THERE is also no doubt that in terms of section 25b of the Act the Respondent workman has been in continuous service and was, therefore, entitled to the protection of section 25f of the Act. ( 8 ) THERE is no dispute that the services of the Respondent workman were terminated without assigning any reason and without holding any enquiry of any kind. In fact the respondent workman was not even given any show cause notice before his services were terminated. There is, therefore, a clear violation of the provisions of Section 25f of the Act. ( 9 ) UNDER the circumstances, the learned industrial Tribunal rightly held that the termination of the Petitioner s services was illegal and unjustified. The relief granted to the Petitioner was also in order, namely, reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of termination, since the Respondent workman had remained unemployed during the entire period. ( 10 ) THERE is, therefore, no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. ( 11 ) THIS writ petition disposes a rather sorry state of affairs with regard to the conduct of litigation by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. ( 12 ) THE challenge is to an Award dated 12th march, 2001. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in this Court on 20th May, 2002 that is after a gap of more than one year. The Petitioner has not bothered to explain in the writ petition why the writ petition was filed after such a great delay. ( 13 ) AFTER the writ petition was filed, the petitioner moved an application stating that the Respondent workman had moved for implementation of the Award and a stay of recovery of Rs. 4,89,645/- was prayed for. ( 14 ) IT appears that after the Award was passed, the Respondent workman made a demand notice on 25th January, 2002 calling upon the Petitioner to implement the Award. When the Petitioner did not implement the award the Respondent workman filed an application on 2nd February, 2002 under section 33 (C) (1) of the Act claiming back wages amounting to Rs. When the Petitioner did not implement the award the Respondent workman filed an application on 2nd February, 2002 under section 33 (C) (1) of the Act claiming back wages amounting to Rs. 4,89,645/- notwithstanding this, the writ petition was filed only in May, 2002 that is after a gap of another three months. ( 15 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition the entire back wages have been recovered by the Respondent workman. Before that, liberty had been granted to the Petitioner to move the Court for interim relief if a recovery certificate is issued, but the record shows that the Petitioner did not approach this Court for any interim relief after the recovery certificate was issued. ( 16 ) THE above facts clearly disclose that there has been enormous delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the impugned Award making it possible for the Respondent workman to have the Award implemented and recover a huge amount of the money from the Petitioner. This is something that is happening quite frequently not only with regard to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, but with regard to some other Government agencies. This is disturbing to say the least. Therefore, to avoid recurrence of inordinate delays, resultant losses to the exchequer and to prevent unnecessary wastage of time of this Court, the following directions are issued to the Registry: "1. While scrutinizing a writ petition arising out of an Award passed under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the registry will insist on the Petitioner stating in the list of dates as well as in the writ petition, the date on which the Award was published. 2. The Registry will also insist on the petitioner stating in the writ petition the steps (in any) taken for implementing the Award". ( 17 ) A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Registrar. ( 18 ) SINCE the Petitioner has unnecessarily dragged the Respondent workman into litigation, it will pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent workman.