Rajender Kumar & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction for setting aside the impugned award dated 07.11.2009 passed in ID No. 25/2005 whereby the claim petition of the workman has been dismissed.

2. Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the terms of reference vide order dated 09.11.2004 was as under: “Whether the services of Sh. Chaman Singh, S/o, Sh. Ram Pal and Others (As per annexure „A‟) have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with other 2014:DHC:6759 consequential benefits in terms of existing laws / Govt. Notifications and to what other relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

3. Accordingly, the Presiding Officer framed the following issues on 01.05.2006: “1. Whether claim of the workmen is highly belated, if so, its effect?

2. Whether the management is not an Industry as alleged?

3. Whether there exists relationship of employee and employer between the parties?

4. Whether the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months?

5. As per terms of the reference.

6. Relief.”

4. Mr. Aggarwal, further submits that the issue before the Tribunal was whether the services of the workmen have been terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the Management, however, has not decided the same.

5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that while taking the shelter of the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. 2006 4 SCC 1 and Ajay Kumar Sharma v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court 133 (2006) DLT 24, Ld. Tribunal has recorded that the services of the petitioner were not terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the Management. Accordingly, the issues noted above were decided against the petitioner and in favour of the Management.

6. Mr. Aggarwal, has relied upon a case of Mohd. Shakeel Akhtar v. MCD in W.P.(C) 213/2011 decided 16.09.2014 whereby this Court held as under: “6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Anoop Sharma v. Executive engineer, Public Health Division No. 1, Panipat (Haryana) decided on 09.04.2010 by the Apex Court, wherein held as under:

7. Keeping in view the issues before the Labour Court and the settled position of law, I am of the considered opinion that case of Uma Devi (Supra) is applicable on employees under the government employment and not to the workmen which has to be dealt under the Industrial Disputes Act”.

7. In view of above, award dated 07.11.2009 is hereby set aside.

8. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the concerned Industrial Tribunal to decide afresh by giving opportunity to both the parties.