HARI CHAND Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was employed by respondent No. 2 - M/s. Ashok Hotel as painter ondaily wage basis w.e.f. 1/05/1971. His services were terminated on 1/02/1978. He raised industrial dispute challenging his termination which was referredfor adjudication to Labour Court IV. Labour Court gave award dated 22/04/1993 holding that termination of petitioner's service were illegal and unjustified andhe was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service.Pursuant to this award petitioner was allowed to join the duties on 6/07/1995 as'Technical Grade-III' in the pay scale of Rs. 1,050.00-1,425.00. On 20/09/1994petitioner protested against the grant of this pay scale and demanded the payscale of Rs. 1,100.00-1,640.00w.e.f. 17/05/1998. In January 1995 he even lodged acomplaint with Labour Commissioner against the Management that it was committingunfair labour practice. It was followed with many representations. Ultimately on 2 1/05/1996, just ten days before the petitioner was to retire from service i.e. on 3 1/05/1996, petitioner filed statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer raisingindustrial dispute claiming the aforesaid pay scale of RS.1100.00 1640.00. Conciliationproceedings ended in failure. Failure report was submitted and ultimately respondentno.1 passed impugned order dated 22/12/1997 declining to makereference by giving the following reasons:-

(2.) One year after the aforesaid rejection, petitioner submitted review petitiondated 1 2/02/1998 requesting respondent no.1 to review its order dated 22/12/1997. This review was also dismissed by impugned order dated 1/09/1998. Relevant portion of this order reads as under:'it is an admitted fact that the workman retired on 31.5.96 and has receivedall his retirement benefits. Though the workman did. raise a disputeregarding illegal termination of his services but did not raise the issue ofpromotion assuch. The workman rejoined on 6.7.94 and had all the time toraise the dispute but he chose to do on the verge of his retirement, that isbarely 10 days before his superannuation. Even the demand notice wassent on 2.5.96. After considering all the facts and circumstances of thecase, I am of the considered opinion that the dispute does not meritadjudication. The review petition does not succeed and the same is, thereby,dismissed." illegal termination of his services but dismissed.

(3.) Petitioner filed this petition challenging order dated 22/12/1997and 1/09/1998.