Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1414 (DEL)

DHIR SINGH v. D. T. C.

2007-07-19

HIMA KOHLI

body2007
HIMA KOHLI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking inter alia, directions to the respondent to withdraw the order dated 5. 7. 1991 whereunder a punishment of removal from service proposed to be imposed on the petitioner, was reduced to bringing him on initial stage of pay-scale. The second prayer made in the writ petition is for directions to the respondent to pay full salary to the petitioner after his reinstatement in the year 2003. ( 2 ) VERY briefly, facts of the case are that the petitioner was charge- sheeted in the year 1986, pursuant to which, he was issued a notice to show cause in 1991 as to why he should not be removed from service. After going through the reply of the petitioner, instead of removing the petitioner from service as proposed, the petitioner was penalized with reduction to initial stage of his pay scale. Thereafter, in the year 1996, the petitioner was suspended from service and his services were subsequently terminated. ( 3 ) AS a result, a dispute was raised by the petitioner under the industrial Disputes Act. When the matter was still pending before the Labour court, the respondent/management issued an advertisement offering out of court settlement, pursuant to which a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent/management and the petitioner rejoined the services of the respondent in the year 2003. ( 4 ) IT is specifically averred in para 14 of the writ petition that the matter was compromised between the parties and the petitioner filed an affidavit before the Competent Officer of the respondent and accepted the terms of compromise before joining the services of the respondent w. e. f. 24. 3. 2003. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid settlement having been arrived at between the parties, even after joining back in the year 2003, the petitioner was paid a low grade salary in terms of the punishment imposed on him in the year 1991 which, according to him, is contrary to the terms and conditions of the settlement. ( 5 ) IN support of his contention that the petitioner was reinstated in service with full salary, in accordance with the terms and conditions of agreement/settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent/management on 24. 3. ( 5 ) IN support of his contention that the petitioner was reinstated in service with full salary, in accordance with the terms and conditions of agreement/settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent/management on 24. 3. 2003, counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the circular dated 13. 5. 2003. ( 6 ) A perusal of the aforesaid document does not show that the same contains any such condition, and for that matter, any term and condition of settlement at all except for referring to an out of court settlement and reinstatement in service of the petitioner and seven other employees. ( 7 ) IN view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that he had lost all his documents, vide order dated 9. 11. 2006, the counsel for the petitioner was directed to furnish the list of documents under his signatures to the counsel for the respondent from him in turn to furnish the documents to the petitioner. It is stated by the counsel for the respondent that the documents, as desired by the petitioner, have been furnished to him and the said documents are those which have been enclosed by the petitioner under Index 18. 7. 2007 and placed on the record. ( 8 ) A perusal of the documents furnished under Index dated 18. 7. 2007 however does not further the case of the petitioner as they do not contain the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent/ management. ( 9 ) AS none of the documents placed on the record throw any light on the issue, subject matter of the present writ petition, namely, the terms and conditions of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent/management, which the petitioner seeks enforcement of, the court has no option but to hold that the petitioner has not been able to substantiate the averments made in the writ petition. ( 10 ) THERE is not a shred of document brought before this Court for arriving at even a prima facie conclusion that the averments of the petitioner made in the present writ petition are borne out, except for a bald averment to the said effect in the writ petition. ( 10 ) THERE is not a shred of document brought before this Court for arriving at even a prima facie conclusion that the averments of the petitioner made in the present writ petition are borne out, except for a bald averment to the said effect in the writ petition. The plea of the petitioner that all the relevant records are in the custody of the respondent and that the onus lies on the respondent to produce the same is not acceptable. In the first instance, it is for the petitioner and not the respondent to establish his case. In these circumstances, this Court declines to exercise its power of judicial review in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed along with the pending application.