RITU SHARMA Vs. MTNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks to assail the award dated 28.1.2000 made and published by the Arbitrator Mr.Ashish Joshi, who had been appointed by the Appointing Authority pursuant to the directions given by the senior Civil Judge, Delhi. The petitioners had challenged the award as made by the Arbitrator by filing of objections before the senior Civil Judge also. However, the parties realised that these objections would not be maintainable in the proceedings in respect of the arbitral award given pursuant to Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. As such the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner made a very fervent plea for justice being done to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was a lady, without any other means of livelihood, except the STD booth. The show cause notice simply was on the basis that the petitioner was found absent and STD booth was being operated by someone else. He submits that petitioner had only engaged a servant, who could be present at the booth in an emergency or to relieve the petitioner, during her absence. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been regular in payment of bills. It was petitioners action in not succumbing to the ulterior demands raised by the area Inspector etc., that petitioner incurred the wrath of respondent MTNL and proceedings for termination of her allotment.

(3.) Learned counsel also submits that one of the neighbour shopkeeper had filed an affidavit in support of the petitioner, who was also examined by the Arbitrator. Petitioner contends that there was no vigilance inspection actually done.