USHA Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the award dated 2nd May, 2011 rendered by the Labour Court whereby the industrial dispute raised by her directly before the Labour Court regarding termination of her services by the respondent has been decided against her and it has been held that her services had not been illegally terminated in fact she had got entry into the Health Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD' in short), respondent herein, as a Ward Aaya on the basis of forged documents.

(2.) The claim of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that she had got employment with the MCD on 6th June, 2005 and she was posted at SDN Hospital as a Ward Aaya vide office order No.4608/AO(H)/RCS/2005 dated 06.06.2005 and she had been working there continuously up to 30th April, 2006. However, with effect from 1st May, 2006 services of the petitioner and many other workers were terminated by the MCD on the allegation that they had obtained appointment fraudulently on the basis of fake documents. The petitioner and other workmen then challenged the said decision of the MCD by filing a writ petition (being WP(C) No.3342/2008) and a Single Judge Bench of this Court had allowed that writ petition and directed her reinstatement in service, vide order dated 28.05.2008 (Annexure - P-3) relying upon an earlier decision dated 09.07.2007 of another Single Judge Bench in WP(C ) No. 8268-85/2006 whereby many workmen whose services had been terminated by MCD because of their also having procured entry in MCD on the basis of fake documents were ordered to be reinstated in service with half of back wages. Those petitions were allowed since even show cause notice was not given to the workmen by MCD before terminating their services. The MCD was, however, given the liberty that it could hold enquiries and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The MCD had challenged that order before the Division Bench and the Division Bench dismissed the LPAs in those cases where no show cause notices were given to the dismissed employees, as is the case of the present workman. The MCD then reinstated the petitioner herein on 12th September, 2008. However, after reinstating her in service she was served with a notice dated 12.09.08 to show cause as to why her name be not struck off from the pay roll because of her having obtained the job fraudulently by producing fake posting order. The petitioner submitted her reply dated 17th September, 2008 to that show cause notice in which she denied that she had submitted any forged or fake documents and claimed that she had not committed any fraud and she was in fact appointed lawfully. The MCD did not accept the explanation of the petitioner and vide its impugned office order dated 6th January, 2009 terminated the petitioner's fraudulent appointment with immediate effect. Thereafter, the petitioner served upon the respondent a demand notice dated 20th February, 2009 through her union claiming that her services had been terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F, G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without holding an enquiry. She requested the MCD for taking her back on duty but since that demand was not accepted she approached the Labour Court directly with a claim petition under Section 10 (4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act in which also her grievance was that her services had been illegally terminated without any enquiry and in complete violation of the provisions of Section 25-F, G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rules 76, 77 & 78 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1947.

(3.) The Labour Court issued notice of the claim petition of the petitioner to the MCD which entered appearance and contested the petitioner's claim primarily on the ground that the office order dated 6th June, 2005 based on which the petitioner had got herself posted at the SDN Hospital was a forged document and that forgery had come to light during audit proceedings.