AJIT SINGH Vs. GOVT OF NCTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset states that the prayer made by him in the petition be treated as for a direction for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to refer the dispute regarding illegal termination of his service and payment of back wages to the competent court.

(2.) The facts of petitioner's case in brief are that he had been employed as an Electrician on 16.5.1988 by respondent No.3 M/s Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Company, New Delhi. Petitioner claims that he continued in service upto November, 1991 but was not paid wages from January, 199 1/11/1991. Petitioner claims that he sought a reference to the labour court for adjudication of the same dispute through his Advocate Smt.Prem Aggarwal on 12.1.1992. Petitioner claims that he contacted his Advocate on various dates between 12.2.1992 to 2.11.1995 when he was informed that the Advocate had already sought reference of the petitioner's claims and written to the labour Commissioner, These assurances given by the counsel were found later on to be incorrect. Ultimately counsel advised the petitioner to contact Rajdhani Karamchari Union, Kalkaji.

(3.) Petitioner is aggrieved that respondent No. 1, the appropriate Government did not make the reference with regard to adjudication of the dispute. Petitioner claims to have represented to respondent No.2, the Labour Commissioner vide his letter dated 30.10.1998 and notice dated 17.11.1998 under Section 80 CPC was issued but to no avail. Petitioner claims that upon contacting the Union he came to know that the claim was not being referred to the competent court on account of undue delay that had been entailed in the matter.