Ram Dass v. World Fashion

1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This writ-petition has been preferred against the judgment of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.IX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi dated April 20, 2010 holding that the services of the petitioner with the respondent-Management were for a fixed period w.e.f. June 01, 1997 to June 16, 1997 and that he having not worked for 240 days with the Management, he was not entitled to any relief. It has been further held that he had left the service of his own accord after the expiry of his fixed term. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the appointment letter of the petitioner Ext. WW1/M[1] bears his signatures at point ‘A’. He also does not dispute that the said appointment letter 2010:DHC:6188 was for a fixed period beginning from June 01, 1997 to June 16, 1997. His only defence is that his signatures were obtained on blank papers implying thereby that the same were later converted into Ext. WW1/M[1]. However, he led no evidence to substantiate the allegation that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that in the face of the appointment letter Ext. WW1/M[1] which admittedly bears the signatures of the petitioner at point ‘A’ and as per which his employment with the Management was for a fixed period between June 01, 1997 to June 16, 1997, no fault can be found with the impugned order holding that the petitioner had not worked for 240 days. The submission that the signatures of the petitioner were obtained on blank papers has no basis and in any case, such an allegation cannot be gone into by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the writ-petition. The same is dismissed.

REKHA SHARMA, J. DECEMBER 21, 2010 PC.