LAWS(DLH)-2010-11-229

ASHARFI LAL Vs. MANAGEMENT OF DELHI CLOTH MILLS

Decided On November 19, 2010
ASHARFI LAL Appellant
V/S
MANAGEMENT OF DELHI CLOTH MILLS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, Petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 01.09.2006 by which the Labour Court has answered the reference against him.

(2.) The Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT Delhi, had referred the dispute between the parties for adjudication to the Labour Court vide Notification No. F.24 (1561)/85 Lab./1499 dated 14.01.1986 with the following terms of reference: "Whether the services of the workman Sh. Asharafi Lal have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitle?"

(3.) Before the Labour Court, the workman had filed a statement of claim alleging therein that he was in the employment of the Respondent/management in the cone-winding department as a cone winder since 23.04.1966. As per him, he was an active cadre of the Union as a result of which the management was annoyed with him. Petitioner had alleged that he was victim of inter union rivalry. Petitioner had alleged that I.N.T.U.C. was a pocket Union of the management and its leader Sh. Sahib Singh and Mool Raj had abused him on 14.05.1997 and had also threatened that the Majdoor Sangh's Workers would not be allowed to work in the department. Petitioner further alleged that he was beaten by Ram Avtar and Rang Dev of I.N.T.U.C. Union on 06.02.1982. Petitioner also lodged FIR with the police on that day and also made a complaint to the management on 07.02.1982. However, without taking action against the aforesaid two persons, the management in order to victimise him had issued a charge-sheet on 17.02.1982. No inquiry was held in the matter by the management. On 12.10.1982 Petitioner was dismissed from the service. Petitioner has alleged that the act of dismissal by the management was unfair and in violation of the principles of natural justice. He had prayed for reinstatement with full back wages as he remained unemployed and could not get employment despite best efforts.