Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 793 (DEL)

RAM HET v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

2009-07-23

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2009
JUDGMENT S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The workman, Shri Ram Het (petitioner herein) has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the impugned award dated 23.02.2007 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (respondent herein) to consider the case of workman for regularisation keeping in mind his seniority from 22.05.1999 as per its policy of regularisation. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Muster Roll Beldar by the respondent w.e.f. 26.07.1986. His services were terminated by the respondent w.e.f 30.01.1988 because of his involvement in a murder case. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute with regard to his termination from the service of the respondent which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court and was registered as I.D. No. 258/1995. During the pendency of I.D. No. 258/1995, the petitioner was acquitted in the murder case by the Sessions Court on 22.05.1999. The Labour Court vide its award dated 07.10.2002 in I.D. No. 258/1995 held the petitioner entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits but restricted the back wages only from the date of his acquittal in the murder case. It was stated in the award dated 07.10.2002 that the petitioner will be entitled to back wages w.e.f. 22.05.1999 instead of from the date of his termination that took place on 30.01.1988. This award of the Industrial Adjudicator in I.D. No. 258/1995 was implemented by the respondent. The petitioner was reinstated in service of the respondent w.e.f. 07.03.2005 and this was pursuant to the award referred hereinabove. 3. After the petitioner was reinstated by the respondent in its service w.e.f. 07.03.2005, he raised another industrial dispute for his regularisation which also was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court and was registered as I.D. No. 197/2006. Since the petitioner was a Muster Roll employee with the respondent, the Industrial Adjudicator vide its award dated 23.02.2007 in I.D. No. 197/2006 directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for his regularisation keeping in mind his seniority from 22.05.1999 in terms of its policy for regularisation. 4. Since the petitioner was a Muster Roll employee with the respondent, the Industrial Adjudicator vide its award dated 23.02.2007 in I.D. No. 197/2006 directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for his regularisation keeping in mind his seniority from 22.05.1999 in terms of its policy for regularisation. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that his seniority as Muster Roll employee for the purpose of regularisation in terms of policy of the respondent should have been reckoned not from the date of his acquittal in the murder case but from the date he initially joined the service of the respondent on Muster Roll, i.e. w.e.f. 26.07.1986. 5. Mr. Alok Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has argued that the seniority of the petitioner for the purpose of his regularisation cannot be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment because of a categorical direction given by the Labour Court in its award dated 07.10.2002 in I.D. No. 258/1995, according to which the petitioner was entitled for back wages with effect from the date of his acquittal in the murder case and not from the date of his initial appointment. This argument advanced on behalf of the respondent appears to be wholly mis-conceived and is not tenable in law. A perusal of the award dated 07.10.2002 in I.D. No. 258/1995, operative portion of which is in para 16 at page 23 of the Paper Book, says that while directing reinstatement of the petitioner, the Court had granted all consequential benefits also. The grant of consequential benefits necessarily imply right to seniority, promotion, gratuity, back wages, other terminal benefits and continuity of service. As far as relief of back wages is concerned, the Industrial Adjudicator restricted the back wages from the date of acquittal of the petitioner in the murder case. Grant of all other consequential benefits while directing reinstatement of the petitioner would include that the petitioner was entitled to his seniority for the purpose of regularisation in terms of policy of the respondent to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment and this right by no means can be forfeited once his termination was found illegal. Grant of all other consequential benefits while directing reinstatement of the petitioner would include that the petitioner was entitled to his seniority for the purpose of regularisation in terms of policy of the respondent to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment and this right by no means can be forfeited once his termination was found illegal. In case the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent, that the seniority of the petitioner in terms of award dated 07.10.2002 in I.D. No. 258/1995 is to be reckoned only from the date of his acquittal in the murder case, is accepted then it will nullify the relief of consequential benefits granted to the workman by the Industrial Adjudicator in its above-referred award. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is held entitled for reckoning of his seniority for the purpose of regularisation in terms of the policy of the respondent from the date of his appointment, i.e. 26.07.1986 instead of date of 22.05.1999 mentioned in the impugned award. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of accordingly.