DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner DDA impugns the award dated 25th March, 1997 of the Labour Court holding the termination by the petitioner DDA of the services of the respondent no.2 workman to be illegal and unjustified and directing the petitioner DDA to reinstate the respondent no.2 workman with full back wages and continuity of service. This court vide ex parte order dated 20th May, 1998, while issuing notice of the petition, stayed the operation and execution of the award including the recovery proceedings, if any, initiated by the respondent no.2 workman. The respondent no.2 workman was served with the notice of the writ petition on 22nd February, 1999 and appeared through counsel who sought time to file counter affidavit. However, no counter affidavit was filed. In the circumstances, this court on 28th March, 2000, in the presence of the counsel for the respondent no.2 workman issued rule in the writ petition and made the interim order absolute. The respondent no.2 workman still did not file any counter affidavit. Court notice was issued to the counsel for the petitioner on 10th November, 2005. However, the same remained unserved. Fresh court notice was issued to the petitioner on 19th April, 2006. Thereafter again rule notice was issued to the respondent. However, the respondent remained unserved. The process issued at his address were returned with the endorsement that there was no such person residing at that address. Ultimately, vide order dated 31st July, 2009 the respondent no.2 workman was ordered to be served by publication and was served by publication for 21st October, 2009. However, still none appeared for the respondent no.2 workman and he was, vide order dated 30th November, 2009 proceeded against ex parte. Inspite of this court having stayed operation of the award the respondent no.2 workman has not filed any application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act either. The counsel for the petitioner has been heard. Though the Labour Court record was summoned but the same has not been received. The counsel for the petitioner has handed over in the court the copies of the relevant records of the Labour Court.

(2.) The claim of the respondent no.2 workman before the Labour Court was that he was in the employment of the petitioner DDA since 24th March, 1983; initially he was employed as a beldar on daily wage basis; thereafter he was assigned the job of non-technical supervisor on daily rated basis and worked so till 25th September, 1987 when his services were terminated by way of refusal of duties. The petitioner DDA filed a reply to the claim petition of the respondent no.2 workman. It was not disputed that the respondent no.2 workman was employed as aforesaid. It was however the stand of the petitioner DDA that the record of services of the respondent no.2 workman was not satisfactory; on 25th September, 1987 he had come to office but left without any permission or intimation; he also took part in political agitation against the then S.E.(Civil Circle-II) of the petitioner DDA in association with some political parties; he was associated in criminal attack upon some government officials and his name was mentioned in the FIR lodged with the police. It was thus contended that the petitioner DDA was justified in dispensing with the services of the respondent no.2 workman. From the affidavit by way of evidence filed before the Labour Court and copy of which has been handed over, it appears that evidence inter alia to the same effect was led by the petitioner DDA before the Labour Court and a copy of the FIR was also filed before the Labour Court.

(3.) The Labour Court has decided the reference in favour of the respondent no.2 workman merely on the ground that he had completed more than 240 days of service in a year and thus his services could not be terminated. As far as the plea of the petitioner DDA of misconduct aforesaid on the part of the respondent no.2 workman is concerned, the award holds that the DDA was obliged to hold disciplinary proceedings against the workman for misconduct and the same having admittedly not been held, the respondent no.2 workman was entitled to protection under Section 25 F of the ID Act.