MCD Vs. PUSHPA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents in all these appeals were working on casual basis in different capacities with MCD. They were all engaged on daily wages. After some time, services of the two respondents were regularized as well. They worked for few years in this capacity. However, thereafter, their services were terminated on different dates sometime in January, 2007 and February, 2007. The main reason for termination of their services, as per the MCD was that they had entered the services on the basis of forged appointment letters and were never recruited after any selection process or by any competent authority even on casual basis. We may mention at this stage that there were large scale of appointments with the MCD with forged/bogus appointments letters and this racket was unearthed. In fact, as would be noted in detail hereinafter, a Public Interest Litigation was also filed in this Court wherein the Court had given directions to the MCD to investigate into the matter and take departmental as well as criminal action not only qua those officers who are responsible for such a scam but also dismiss the services of those persons who were found to have entered on the basis of fabricated appointment letters. The MCD did this exercise and found that many such persons secured employment fraudulently on the basis forged/fabricated documents. There services were also dispensed with. These included the respondents herein as it was alleged that these persons also submitted forged appointment letter and other documents to enter the service. They raised industrial dispute under Section 10 (4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the ID Act). Initially one single statement of claim was filed by all the four persons. The MCD questioned the maintainability of such a dispute as according to the MCD, only individual dispute could be raised as per the provisions of Section 10 (4A) of the ID Act. The same was accordingly dismissed by the Labour Court and four individual cases were filed. By the time, fresh applications under Section 10 (4A) of the ID Act was filed, the period of one year from the date of their termination had passed by. The MCD, in these circumstances, took the objection that the claims were time barred as they were filed beyond limitation period of one year. It was also submitted on merits that they have secured appointment on the basis of fake letters and, therefore, not entitled to any relief. The Labour Court passed the awards in all the four cases holding that the claim was barred by time and, therefore, the workmen were not entitled to any relief. Challenging that order, these workmen preferred separate writ petitions (four in number). The learned Single Judge has allowed these writ petitions vide common judgment dated 27.7.2011, holding that the claims were not time barred and further that since the MCD did not lead any evidence showing that these workmen had produced fabricated appointment letters and, there services were terminated without giving any show cause notice and affording any opportunity to them to defend their cases and their termination was bad in law. The learned Single Judge has, accordingly, allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the order of the Labour Court and directing reinstatement of these workmen without back wages. At the same time, the opportunity is granted to the MCD to proceed against these workman in accordance with law after issuing them show cause notice and giving them chance to be heard. Challenging this order of the learned Single Judge, present Intra-court appeal is preferred by the MCD, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patents.

(2.) BEFORE we proceed to consider the twin aspects which arose in these appeals namely question of limitation in preferring the claim, under Section 10 (4A) of the ID Act and validity of termination, we would state the facts of each case, in brief, as noted by the learned Single Judge as well.

(3.) MR. Sanjay Kumar, the respondent in LPA 936/2011 was appointed as a chowkidar in the MCD with effect from 11th January, 1999. His services were regularized with effect from 14th February, 2002. On the same ground his services were terminated on 31st January, 2007.