NDMC Vs. RAM PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioner impugns the award dated 25 th March, 1995 whereby the learned Trial Court held that the termination of the Respondent/ workman was illegal and unjustified, a colourable exercise of power, therefore, mala-fide and directed reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner was initially appointed on 3 rd October, 1980 on adhoc basis on consolidated salary. His services were regularized with effect from 24 th September, 1982 and he was placed on probation for two years. Thereafter the workman remained absent on several dates and stopped coming to office with effect from 26 th December, 1984 without any intimation. He was called back to join, however, he failed and neglected to join the duty till 14 th February, 1985. Since the Respondent was on probation the Petitioner had two options either to simply terminate him without casting any aspersion or conduct an enquiry. The services of the Respondent were terminated on 8 th July, 1985.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that the Respondent is a workman and even if he was on probation, provisions of Section 25F are duly attracted if his services are terminated without following due process. Relying upon Devender Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur it is contended that the source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/contract of service, the quantum of wages/ pay and the mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the ID Act'). No distinction is made between a full-time and a part-time employee, or a person employed on contract basis. Further, since the termination of the Respondent is illegal being contrary to the provision of Section 25F ID Act, there is no jurisdictional error in the Trial Court awarding reinstatement with full back wages, warranting interference by this Court as held in Devender Singh and M/s. Indian Tourism Development Corporation, New Delhi Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi, 1982 LabIC 1309. Reliance is also placed on L.Robort D Souza Vs. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Anr., 1982 AIR(SC) 854to contend that since the termination was on account of absence without leave constituting misconduct, the same is contrary to the principles of natural justice as no enquiry was held. Admittedly, the Respondent had completed 240 days and thus the provisions of Section 25F were clearly applicable. There being no infirmity in the impugned award, the petition be dismissed.