JAI BHAGWAN Vs. MGT OF MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the Petitioners challenge the award dated 24 th December, 2002 passed by the Learned Labour Court holding that the Petitioners failed to prove on record that the termination of their services by the Management was illegal and thus no consequential relief was granted. None is present on behalf of the Respondent No.1 despite pass-over. None was present on behalf of the Respondent No.1 even on 3rd July, 2012. Thus I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and perused the Record including the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioners contends that the termination of the Petitioners is in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ID Act) and Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 ( in short the ID Rules). The Respondent has taken contrary stands, as before the Conciliation officer it was stated that the services of the Petitioners were no more required and hence were terminated, whereas in the written statement filed before the learned Labour Court it was stated that the Petitioners had abandoned the job on their own accord and their services were not terminated. The Management Witness No.1 who appeared in the witness box admitted that no separate termination orders were issued to the Petitioners, and no service compensation was paid to them. It is further admitted that no seniority list was displayed by the Respondent either on 13th January, 1999 or before that, at the place of work of workmen, or at any other place. It is further submitted that no further service compensation was paid to the workmen concerned. It is admitted by Suresh Kumar Gupta MW-1 that the Petitioners were engaged on 28th March, 1996 and kept on working till 13th January, 1999. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that since the appointments are made zone-wise, the Petitioners could have been transferred to Tikri Border market or directed to work as Chowkidars in the same zone at other place. No seniority list was ever published and thus the Petitioners could not show that the principle of ,,last come first go was followed. Reliance is placed on S.M. Nilajkar and Ors. Vs. Telecom, District Manager, Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 27; Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (Haryana) (2010) 5 SCC 497; Krishan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana) (2010) 3 SCC 637; The Management of MCD Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal in W.P.(C) 6024/1999 decided by Delhi High Court on 25.08.2011; Gaffar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 1850/1980 decided on 07.02.1983 by Patna High Court. Thus, the Petitioners had completed more than 240 days in the preceding year and were entitled to the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) THE facts in brief are that the Petitioners were employed as daily wage Chowkidars by the Respondents on 28th March, 1996 initially for a period of 89 days which engagement was continued by successive office orders. It is the case of the workmen also that their services were terminated as the PVC market shifted from Jwalapuri to Tikri Border, though no termination order was served on them. The order of appointment of the Petitioners read as under: