Delhi District Court
The vs The on 8 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHAVIR SINGHAL: POIT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
I.D. No. 163/10
The Workman
Sh. Suresh s/o Late Sh. Ram Karan c/o Municipal Employees Union,
Aggarwal Bhawan, GT Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi 110054.
Vs.
The Management
M/s Delhi Jal Board, Varunalaya Building, Phase II, Karol Bagh, New
Delhi
Date of institution 04.01.2010
Date of reserving judgment 31.10.2011
Date of award 08.11.2011
Ref : F.24 (12)/09/Lab./CD/198 dated 26.11.09
AWARD
1.Workman has raised the present industrial dispute through Union and on failure of conciliation proceedings, GNCT of Delhi referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication in following terms of reference:-
"Whether demand to appoint sh. Suresh s/o Late Sh. Ram Karan on compassionate ground is justified; and if yes, what directions are necessary in this regard?"
2. Statement of claim has been filed on behalf the workman, I.D. No. 163/10 Page 1 of 8 wherein it is stated that Sh. Ram Karan (now deceased) was in the employment of the management as Safai Karamchari. It is submitted that he died on 30.12.1998, leaving behind his family in great financial hardship. It is further submitted that after the death of his father, workman Suresh applied for his appointment on compassionate ground but no action was taken. It is further submitted that on 31.10.2001, the workman Suresh was called for interview and till date nothing has been informed to him about the fate of the interview. It is submitted that the workman is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground vide office memorandum and verdict of the higher courts. It is submitted that demand notice dated 15.09.2007 was served upon the management to this effect but the same has not been replied. Therefore, conciliation proceedings also failed, hence this reference.
3. In WS filed by the management, it is stated that Sh. Ram Karan expired on 30.12.1998 and the present reference has been made on 16.11.2009, after about a lapse of 11 years and the very purpose of appointment on compassionate ground has already been defeated. It is further submitted that case of claimant was placed before the screening committee on 31.10.2001 and after interview, he was not recommended for appointment on compassionate ground and the same was I.D. No. 163/10 Page 2 of 8 communicated to him. It is further submitted that Government restriction on the number of posts to be offered for appointment on compassionate ground is 5% and as the number of applications is larger than the number of post available, management has constituted a departmental screening committee for scrutiny of the cases by laying down clear criteria for appointment on compassionate ground to ensure transparency. It is submitted that application of Sh. Suresh was processed under the above mentioned criteria and his application was rejected on the ground that his family has own house, his brothers were working and there was no major liability and his family can sustain. It is further submitted that on his request, application of Suresh was again placed before the screening committee and the same was again rejected on the ground that deceased employee had completed 2/3rd of his service span.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issue were framed by Ld. Predecessor on 04.10.2010:-
1. Whether reference is highly belated?
2. As per terms of reference.
5. Workman Suresh has examined himself as WW 1. In his affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief, he has reiterated the contents of statement of claim. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the I.D. No. 163/10 Page 3 of 8 screening committee had called him for interview on 31.10.2011 but has denied that the rejection order was communicated to him. He has admitted that he is living in the house owned by his father. It is further admitted that his two brothers are employed in government department on daily wages.
6. WW 2 Sh. Surender Bhardwaj, General Secretary of the workman Union has deposed in his examination-in-chief that resolution was passed in the meeting held on 30.09.07 espousing the cause of the workman.
7. In his cross-examination he has deposed that he did not remember the date and month of establishment of the Union. He has further deposed that he has not brought the minutes but he could produce the same.
8. Management has examined Sh. Prakash Chander, Asst.
Commissioner of Delhi Jal Board as MW 1. In his affidavit, he has reiterated the stand taken in the written statement.
9. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the claimant was called for interview, which was held on 31.10.01. He has further deposed that there is no document to show that outcome of said interview was communicated to claimant. He has further deposed in his cross- examination that case of the claimant was again considered in 2005 but there is no document to show that outcome of the same was communicated to the claimant.
I.D. No. 163/10 Page 4 of 8
10. I have heard arguments from Sh. Surender Bhardwaj, Ld. AR for the workman and Sh. Pradeep Gupta Ld. Counsel/AR for the management. I have perused the entire record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
11. Findings on issue 1 The issue No 1 is "Whether reference is highly belated?" In S.Shalimar Works Limited vs Their Workmen AIR 1959 SC 1217, it was held that though no limitation is prescribed for making reference of the dispute to an Industrial Tribunal, nevertheless, it has to be made within a reasonable period. In that case delay of 4 years in raising industrial dispute was held to be fatal. In another Authority reported as Nedungadi Bank Ltd vs K.P. Madhavakutty and others AIR 2000 SC 839, delay of 7 years was held to be fatal and disentitled the workman to any relief. Similar view was reiterated in S.M. Nilajkar and others vs Telecom District Manager, Karnataka 2003(4) SCC 27. Relying upon abovesaid authorities, our own Hon'ble High Court in Satbir Singh vs Management of Suptd. Engineer and others 138(2007) DLT 528 ( DHC), has been held that inordinate and unexplained delay in raising industrial dispute would defeat the rights of the workman and would disentitle him to any relief. I.D. No. 163/10 Page 5 of 8
12. It is admitted case of workman in the statement of claim in para 1 that his father Sh. Ram Karan died on 30.12.1998. The reference is dated 26.11.2009. Demand notice is dated 15.9.07. Claimant was interviewed on 31.10.01. It cannot be stated that he did not know the outcome of interview in 2001 or even in 2002. Apparently, there is inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 05 years in raising the present reference. It is, therefore, held that the reference is highly belated.
13. Findings on issue no.2 Issue no.2 is "As per terms of reference". Terms of reference are "Whether demand to appoint Sh. Suresh s/o Late Sh. Ram Karan on compassionate ground is justified; and if yes, what directions are necessary in this regard?"
14. In Ganesh Goel vs Secretary Delhi Development Authority 2007 ( 114) FLR 1011, it had been held a person seeking compassionate appointment has only a right to be considered within the framework of the provisions governing such appointments from time to time. It was also held that such a person has no indefeasable right to be appointed.
15. Further, in General Manager, State Bank of India vs Anju Jain 2008(4) S.C.T 305, Birbati Rani vs State Bank of Patiala, 2008(3) S.C.T.834, C. Rajagopal vs Superintending Engineer, Madurai I.D. No. 163/10 Page 6 of 8 2008(4) S.C.T 178 and Steel Authority of India Ltd vs Madhusudan Das & Ors 2009 (1) S.C.T 449, it has been held by Their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court that appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right. It is only an enabling measure to support family of the deceased employee under distress or penury to save its member from destitution.
16. As held above by Hon'ble Supreme Court, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is only an enabling measure to support family of the deceased employee under distress or penury to save its member from destitution. Claimant has admitted in his cross-examination that that he is living in the house owned by his father. It is further admitted by him that his two brothers are employed in government department on daily wages. Therefore, no distress or destitution has been shown by the claimant, for which he needs appointment on compassionate ground to support family of the deceased. Moreover, at the time of appointment on compassionate ground, it is the comparative study of the applicants at particular time, which is considered and the case of applicant cannot be considered in isolation. It is not the case of claimant that he deserved more than other applicants when his case was considered for appointment on compassionate ground. I.D. No. 163/10 Page 7 of 8
17. In view of above case law and facts of the case and also analysis of the same, demand to appoint claimant Sh. Suresh s/o Late Sh. Ram Karan on compassionate ground is not justified and thus, no directions are necessary in this regard.
18. In view of decision on issues no.1 and 2, claim of claimant Sh. Suresh Kumar for appointment on compassionate ground is dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly and award is passed in these terms.
19. Copy of this award be sent to GNCT of Delhi for publication. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court
on 08.11.2011 (MAHAVIR SINGHAL)
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
I.D. No. 163/10 Page 8 of 8