Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 87 (DEL)

M. C. D. v. PUNNI RAM

2004-02-09

MADAN B.LOKUR

body2004
( 1 ) THE Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 2nd February, 1999 passed by the learned Labour Court in ID No. 1/1993. ( 2 ) THE claim of the Respondent/workman was that he had joined the services of the petitioner on 25th July, 1983 as a Beldar and that his services were terminated on 15th september, 1984 without assigning any reason and contrary to the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Claim was that he had put in more than 240 days of service in a span of 12 calendar months and was,therefore, entitled to be retained in service. The statement of claim filed by the respondent/workman was not denied by the petitioner. In fact, the Petitioner had taken several opportunities to file a written statement but failed to do so. ( 3 ) UNDER these circumstances, the learned labour Court, on the basis of the statement of the Respondent/workman, which was uncontrovered, held that he had completed 240 days of continuous service. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner contends that before the Conciliation Officer, a stand was taken by the Petitioner that the respondent/workman had put in only 74 days of service and the reply filed before the conciliation Officer was placed on the record of the learned Labour Court. There is no doubt about the fact that such a reply was filed by the Petitioner before the Conciliation officer but the same was denied by the respondent/workman in his rejoinder. ( 5 ) LATER in his statement of claim, the respondent/ workman had made a specific averment that he had put in 240 days of continuous service but in spite of this, the petitioner did not rebut the statement of the respondent/workman. The learned Labour court had, therefore, no option but to accept the statement of the Respondent/workman. There was no requirement, in the absence of any denial by the Petitioner for the respondent/workman to have furnished additional proof that he had put in more than 240 days of continuous service. The learned Labour court had, therefore, no option but to accept the statement of the Respondent/workman. There was no requirement, in the absence of any denial by the Petitioner for the respondent/workman to have furnished additional proof that he had put in more than 240 days of continuous service. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the demand notice sent by the Respondent/workman was delayed by about seven years and that it was sent only on 6th May 1991 while taking this into consideration, the learned Labour Court has denied to the Respondent/workman back wages up to May, 1991 and has granted him only 50% of the wages drawn by him at the time of termination without any other monetary advantages from May, 1991 onwards. In other words, the Respondent/ workman has not been granted complete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . because of the delay caused by him in serving the demand notice. ( 7 ) ON these facts, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned Award. There is no apparent perversity shown by learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs cm 1395/2002 also stands disposed of.