D.D.A. Vs. ROHTASH PANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the award dated 21 st January, 2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal in Industrial Dispute ID No. 482/89/07 wherein the learned Tribunal granted the relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages to the workmen.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the learned Trial Court erred in not appreciating that the Respondents were engaged for a short period on account of temporary exigencies of work and their services were disengaged after completion of the project. Even if there were some technical flaws in the disengagement of their services, reinstatement could not have been directed by the learned Trial Court. Respondent No. 1 worked with the Management from 1 st February, 1986 to 1 st June, 1988 and Respondent No. 2 worked from 1 st January, 1986 to 1 st June, 1988 with breaks and after completion of the contract work they were disengaged and in such a case their disengagement would not amount to retrenchment. Both the Respondents worked as casual/muster roll/daily wagers and in such a case relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages would not be justified. It is further contended that the Petitioner has discontinued the practice of engagement of workers on casual basis for a long time and at present, there are hardly any employees working on casual basis and if the Respondents are reinstated in services it would lead to recreation of casual/muster roll employment in DDA. It is lastly contended that Respondent No. 1 has stated in his cross examination that he is engaged in agricultural work, the workmen have already received their entire back wages from 1988 till the filing of the present writ petition in 1996 and also have been receiving the wages under Section17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "the ID Act') for a long time, thus adequate compensation has already been paid to them.

(3.) Per contra learned counsel for the Respondents contends that the Respondents were not engaged for any particular project or on account of temporary exigencies of work. The Petitioner has not produced any document to show that the work was of a temporary nature. Petitioner has many ongoing projects and the Respondents may be reinstated with their appropriate designation in those projects. It is further submitted that under Section 25F and 25G of the ID Act, there is no discrimination between regular and casual employees and the same are equally applicable to both categories of workmen. It is lastly contended that the workmen were doing the work equivalent to the regular employees and their counterparts were regularized however, the workmen were not.