BAL KISHAN Vs. M.C.D.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the award dated 28.05.2007 passed by the learned Labour Court in ID No. 645/2006 on the ground that it records that his services were terminated for purported retrenchment whereas this was not even an issue raised by the respondent-management before the learned Labour Court; instead the officer of the respondent/management had admitted that the petitioner's services were terminated because he was involved in a criminal case. Four workmen namely-Ashok, Jaibeer, Vikas and Rajpal were also involved in the same criminal case. They continued to be in service despite being similarly placed with the petitioner. They had joined services of the management after the petitioner. Therefore, if there was going to be any retrenchment, then as per principle of LIFO- Last In First Out, the aforementioned four persons should have been retrenched first and not the petitioner, who was better placed i.e. he was senior to them in employment. He refers to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192, wherein it has been held, inter alia, as under:-

(2.) Mr. D.S. Chaddha, Sanitary Superintendent, MCD has stated in his cross examination as under:-

(3.) The management has clearly accepted that the four other workmen were identically placed with the petitioner apropos the criminal cases, they were permitted to continue their services with the management. But an exception was made for the petitioner. He was inexplicably denied the same treatment and benefit. This is arbitrary and unfair treatment to the respondent. It is untenable in law and, therefore, would have to be set aside.