Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi Through ... vs Krishan Pal And Lillu on 11 December, 2007
Author: J.M. Malik
Bench: J.M. Malik
JUDGMENT J.M. Malik, J.
1. The factual matrix relevant for appreciating the matter is stated as under.
2. Krishan Pal respondent filed statement of claim before the Labour Court alleging therein that he was appointed as Safai Karamchari on 01.02.1997 and worked on that post till August 1997. Thereafter, he was appointed as Beldar on 01.04.1998 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 2,572/- per month. Lillu s/o Shri Kanwan alleged that he was appointed as Safai Karmchari-cum-Beldar in 1992 and worked till 1996-97 and he was getting salary of Rs. 2,572/- per month from 01.04.1998. Both of them made the following prayer:
In view of the above submissions, it is prayed your Honour that you may kindly be pleased to pass an Award for our reinstatement and the management be prevailed upon to regularize our services on the post of Safai Karamchari/Beldar with retrospective effect from the initial date of our joining into the employment and to entire full back wages in proper pay scale and allowances and also pay us entire difference of salary on the principle of Equal pay for Equal work since our joining, all consequential benefits and also with the continuity of our services as early as possible in the interest of justice and oblige.
3. The petitioner/MCD was directed to file written statement on 12.12.2003 in the above said case bearing ID No. 98/2003 by the Labour Court. On 13.02.2004 it was submitted by authorised representative for MCD that it had not received the record. On 02.04.2004 authorised representative for petitioner/MCD informed the court that the particulars of workmen were not complete. On 08.04.2004 an application was moved by the authorised representative for the petitioner/MCD, wherein it had sought better particulars. The application moved by the petitioner/MCD was permitted. Several opportunities were granted to the petitioner/MCD to file the written statement and cost was also imposed. The petitioner/MCD failed to file written statement and pay the cost even after several opportunities. On 17.12.2004 defense of the MCD/petitioner ultimately was struck off.
4. The MCD/petitioner moved an application for setting aside the order dated 17.12.2004. The labour court dismissed the application vide order dated 05.08.2005.
5. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that order passed by the labour court on 05.08.2005 dismissing the application of the petitioner for setting aside order dated 17.04.2004 be set aside.
6. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of this case. M/s Amita Gupta made the following submissions. The written statement could not be filed in time because the record in question was not traceable. The impugned order is harsh and would result in irreparable lose to the petitioner/MCD. The Labour Court is not considering the evidence/defense of the MCD due to striking off the defense of MCD.
7. It is clear that the MCD perused the matter in Lackadiasical manner. The procrastination on its part in approaching the High Court for setting aside the order dated 05.08.2005 on 06.12.2007 i.e. after the leg of about 2 years is difficult to fathom. One is not supposed to pursue such like serious matters in a happy go lucky manner. Although, it is true that Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) is not strictly applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, yet there lies no rub for the Labour Court to evolve its own procedure and take cue from the latest amendments made in C.P.C. No cogent or plausible reason to explain the above said delay is forthcoming. The defense that record is not traceable can be set up at any stage. It is not very difficult to create such like defense. There should be some `sufficient grounds' for extending the time. The argument raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is indefensible. The writ petition is without merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed at admission stage.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court forthwith.
CM No. 17246/2007No orders are required to be passed in this application in view of the dismissal of the petition.
Dismissed.