Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Sukhvir Singh And Ors. on 14 February, 1994
Equivalent citations: 53(1994)DLT821
JUDGMENT K.S. Bhat, J.
(1) According to the petitioner the first respondent was employed for a limited period on daily-wage basis and that he was engaged between 11.11.1980 to 17.3.1982 and thereafter he did not turn up for work. Inspite of this, subsequently he insisted that he was an employee of the petitioner Corporation. The workman contended that he was employed as a mali beldar since 11.11.1980 as muster-roll employee and was being paid the wages at the rate fixed by Delhi Administration under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act for unskilled casual workers. According to him he was deemed to be a permanent employee.
(2) Before the Labour Court there was no dispute that the workman was engaged as muster-roll Beldar in the Horticulture Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. There was also no dispute that he was engaged between 11.11.1980 to 17.3.1982; thereafter he abandoned the services. The Labour Court proceeded to consider the question - Whether the workman abandoned the job voluntarily as per issue No. 1. Having regard to the evidence on record the Labour Court held that there was no material to justify the case of the Municipal Corporation that he was employed for a specific period. The Labour Court observed that in the absence of any evidence to show that the workman was employed against the specific job for a specific period, it cannot be held that the management employed the workman for a certain period only. The Labour Court also found that admittedly several other persons were employed as daily wagers and the work is going on. In the circumstances it was held that he was not employed for a specific period.
(3) The petitioner assails this find ing pointing out that the witness examined on behalf of the Corporation has not been referred in the order.
(4) I am of the view that the Corporation failed to produce the best evidence before the Labour Court. Corporation is a statutory body. It should have records as to how workmen were being employed. The relevant wage register or any other document reflecting the muster-roll could have been produced before the Labour Court. It is not sufficient for the Corporation to examine I or 2 officers of the Corporation because employment is not a private employment under the Corporation. The writ petitioner nowhere points out that the employment of the first respondent for a specific period is reflected in the documents of the Corporation. In the circumstances I am of the view that the conclusion of the Labour Court cannot be reversed by me, and in fact the Labour Court was justified in the conclusion arrived at in the circumstances of the case.
(5) Once it is held that the employment of the first respondent was not for a specific period, the Court shall have to proceed that the denial of employment to the first respondent by the Corporation for whatever reason shall have to be only according to law. If he had abandoned the employment certainly that could have been a ground for holding an enquiry against him and passing appropriate order. That has not been done in the instant case. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.