Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 108 (DEL)

SHYAM LAL PAL v. PO LABOUR COURT NO. 1

2006-01-17

MADAN B.LOKUR, MARKANDEY KATJU

body2006
MARKANDEYA KATJU, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge 25. 3. 1997. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 2 ) THE appellant was employed by the respondent MCD w. e. f. 18. 2. 1987 as a daily wage worker in place of one Ram Sahai Pal and his service was terminated on 1. 1. 1989. Aggrieved, he raised an industrial dispute against the termination of his service which was referred to the Labour Court Na. I, Delhi. By its award, the labour Court held that termination of his service was valid. The appellant then filed a writ petition which was dismissed and hence this appeal. ( 3 ) THE appellant was appointed as a water cooler Chowkidar in place of one ram Sahai Pal w. e. f. 18. 2. 1987. Thus, he was abadli worker in place of Ram Sahai pal. ( 4 ) THE Labour Court held that the appellant was appointed in place of another workman and that means that his term of employment was till the person in whose place he was employed rejoined. Hence he held that Clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act applies, and consequently there was no retrenchment. ( 5 ) THE order of appointment of the appellant dated 18. 2. 1987 states:"municipal Corporation of Delhi slaughter House no. 98/sh/87 Dated : 18. 2. 87 d. C. (H) vide orders dated 9. 2. 87 has been pleased to approve the appointment of Shri Shyam Lal Pal as Water Cooler Chowkidar in place of Sh. Ram Sahai Pal. Shri Shyam Lal Pal has joined his duties w. e. f. 18. 2. 87 F. N. sd/- supdt. Slaughter House 1. Sh. Shyam Lal Pal 2. ACA/sh" ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for appellant has relied on the Supreme Court decision in S. M. Nilajkar and Others v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, III (2003) slt 22= (2003) 4 SCC 27 . ( 7 ) IN our opinion, the aforesaid decision is distinguishable because that was not a case of a Badli workmen like ti;e present one. A perusal of the order dated 18. 2. 1987 itself states that the appellant was being appointed in place of Ram Sahai pal. ( 7 ) IN our opinion, the aforesaid decision is distinguishable because that was not a case of a Badli workmen like ti;e present one. A perusal of the order dated 18. 2. 1987 itself states that the appellant was being appointed in place of Ram Sahai pal. Hence, the moment Ram Sahai Pal returned from work, the appointment of the appellant would automatically come to an end. Hence, in our opinion, Clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act applies and there is no retrenchment. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .