Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Shri Begh Raj on 27 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: 117(2005)DLT438, 2005(80)DRJ351
Author: Mukul Mudgal
Bench: Mukul Mudgal
JUDGMENT Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This writ petition challenges the award dated 6th October, 1995 directing reinstatement of the respondent, in service of the petitioner MCD with full back wages and consequential benefits. Full back wages were directed to be paid at minimum wages fixed by the appropriate Government from time to time under Minimum Wages Act since 1st January, 1984 till the date of his reinstatement. It is also directed that the respondent will be deemed to be in continuous service and will also be entitled to consequential benefits. The Labour Court inter alia recorded the following findings:-
(a) That the workman had claimed that he had been working from 4th August, 1979 till 1st January, 1984 as Mali/Beldar and he was being treated as daily rated/casual/muster roll worker and his services were terminated on 1st January, 1984 without assigning any valid reason contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors., , which held as under:-
"Striking off the name of a workman from the rolls by the employer amounts to 'termination of service' and such termination is retrenchment within the meaning of S. 2(oo) if effected in violation of mandatory provision contained in S. 25F, and is invalid."
(b) The notice of demand was sent on 15th February, 1988 but no reply was received. The case of the petitioner was that the workman had abandoned his job and further that he had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The workman has contended that he was in employment since August, 1979 till 1st January, 1984.
(c) No charge-sheet was issued to the workman who was stated to be working from August, 1979 till 1st January, 1984 and in any event the provisions of Section 25F, G & H are violated.
(d) In 1994 II L.L.N 720, MCD v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors., the law laid down by the High Court was that once the employment of the workman was not for a specific period, the denial of employment to the workman shall have to be in accordance with law. If the workman had abandoned the employment, that would be a ground for the petitioner for holding an inquiry and passing an appropriate order. That not having been done, the action of the MCD could not have been sustained in view of the above position of law.
2. These are the findings of fact which are not amenable to the challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The workman is stated to have been working from August, 1979 to 1984. However, it has been stated before this Court that as per the award amount due from the date of termination i.e. 1st January, 1984 till 31st December, 1995 has already been recovered by the respondent. This amount was recovered before the filing of the writ petition in this Court. Accordingly, the recovery already made cannot be interfered with. In view of the facts of the present case where recovery of wages as per the award up to 31st December, 1995 has already been made, the interest of justice would warrant that no further back wages be payable to the workman subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses plus reinstatement of the respondent on or before 1st March, 2005. For this purpose the respondent shall report to the Director (Horticulture), MCD, Delhi on 1st March, 2005 at 10.00 AM. The direction of the Labour Court for continuous service and consequential benefits shall remain.
3. Subject to the aforesaid reinstatement and directions as to the amount recoverable, and the denial of any further back wages to the respondent workman, the writ petition stands dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.