DESH RAJ Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this Intra-Court Appeal is to the judgment dated 8th July, 2011 of the Learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.887/1996 preferred by the respondent MCD impugning the award dated 1 st September, 1994 of the Industrial Adjudicator directing the respondent MCD to reinstate the appellant workman in service with full back wages save for the period 1st December, 1987 to 15th April, 1988.

(2.) THIS appeal has been preferred after a delay of 212 days and is accompanied by an application for condonation thereof. The reason stated for the delay is that the appellant workman was unable to muster resources to prefer the present appeal. We are not satisfied with the reason given in as much as the averment is vague without any particulars and do not find the same to be a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. However to satisfy our judicial conscience we have also looked into the merits.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant workman before us has fairly conceded that Section 25F is not attracted since the appellant workman had not completed 240 days of employment. THE argument however is that Sections 25G & H of the I.D. Act which do not require an employee to have completed 240 days of employment have been violated in as much as the respondent MCD was required to first retrench the workman last employed in that category and before employing any other person ought to have offered employment to the appellant workman. Reliance in this regard is placed on Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corp. (2010) 3 SCC 192.