YOGENDER Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he had got employment with the MCD on 4th July, 2005 and he was posted at Chest Clinic & T.B. Hospital, Nehru Nagar as a Ward Boy vide office order No.4746/AO(H)/RCS/2005 dated 04.07.2005 and he had been working there continuously up to 3rd May, 2006. However, with effect from 4th 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.3345/2008) and a Single Judge Bench of this Court had allowed that writ petition and directed his reinstatement in service, vide order dated 28.05.2008 (Annexure A -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 him in service he was served with a notice dated 12.09.08 to show cause as to why his name be not struck off from the pay roll because of his having obtained the job fraudulently by producing fake posting order. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 17 -09 -08 to that show cause notice in which he denied that he had submitted any forged or fake documents and claimed that he had not committed any fraud and he was in fact appointed lawfully. The MCD did not accept the explanation of the petitioner and vide its impugned office order dated 14th January, 2009 terminated the petitioner's fraudulent appointment with immediate effect. Thereafter, the petitioner served upon the respondent a demand notice dated 19th March, 2009 through his union claiming that his 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. He requested the MCD for taking him back on duty but since that demand was not accepted he approached the Labour Court directly with a claim petition under Section 10 (4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act in which also his grievance was that his 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, 1957.

(3.) THE petitioner in his rejoinder reiterated his case which he had pleaded in the claim statement.