MCD Vs. BHAGIRATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent workman is reported to have been served by ordinary process. None appears. THE respondent workman is proceeded against ex parte.

(2.) THE challenge in this petition is to the award dated 10 th November, 2006 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:- "Whether the services of Sh. Bhagirath Singh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" and granting the relief to the respondent workman of lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- only. Notice of the petition was issued and subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses in this Court the operation of the award stayed. THE said amount is stated to have been deposited. THE respondent workman as aforesaid has failed to appear inspite of service.

(3.) THE Industrial Adjudicator on the basis of the petitioner MCD in the cross examination of the respondent workman not putting the suggestions that the respondent workman had never worked with the petitioner MCD and on the basis of the witness of the petitioner MCD in the cross examination admitting that the name of the respondent workman existed in the muster roll held the respondent workman to have been in the employment of the petitioner MCD and thus awarded the relief as aforesaid.