ANAND SINGH BISHT Vs. ANAND KUMAR GAUTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged impugned award dated 13.12.2006 by which Labour Court-XVI, Delhi has held that the services of petitioner have not been terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the respondent/management and as such has not been granted any relief.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed by the respondent/management on 01.10.1995 as a driver but no letter of appointment was given to him. Initially, he was shown as a casual worker but later on he was confirmed on 01.09.1999 and thereafter was treated as a regular employee w.e.f. 01.02.2000. He continuously worked with the management till 28.02.2002, when his services were illegally terminated. His last drawn wages were Rs. 6616/- p.m. and a cheque of Rs. 11,645/- was given to him towards one month salary and compensation of services rendered by him w.e.f. 01.02.2000. It is alleged that respondent/ management did not take into consideration the period of service w.e.f. 01.10.1995 when he was employed. Petitioner accepted the same under protest. Petitioner served a demand notice dated 02.04.2002 through the counsel but of no result. Petitioner filed conciliation proceedings wherein statement of claim was filed by him but conciliation proceedings resulted in failure and the dispute was referred by the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi to the Labour Court for adjudication wherein petitioner filed the statement of claim alleging therein the same facts as are stated above.

(3.) The statement of claim filed by him before the Labour Court was opposed by the respondent/management by filing a written statement wherein it was alleged that the termination was legal and justified and that he was not entitled for any relief. The stand of management before the labour court was that in view of huge maintenance charges of Delhi office and as a measure of economy, management decided to dispose of the vehicle along with abolition of post of driver from Delhi office and as such, in terms of the appointment of petitioner, one month wages in lieu of notice along with compensation was given to him which was duly acknowledged by him, as such, petitioner was not entitled for any relief. Thereafter, issues were framed. Both the parties led evidence and ultimately Labour Court vide impugned award held that the services of petitioner had not been terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the management and no relief had been given to him. Aggrieved with the same, the present petition is filed.