NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. DEEPAK WADHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 14 th September, 1992, the respondent was appointed as a Beldar with the appellant on muster roll, for a period of ninety days. Vide subsequent order dated 18 th September, 1992, he was appointed in the same capacity, again for a period of ninety days. It was stated in the order dated 18 th September, 1992 that his appointment will not confer any right for regular appointment and will automatically come to an end on the expiry of aforesaid period or could be terminated earlier, at any time, without assigning any notice or without reason. Vide order dated 16 th December, 1992, earlier appointment was extended till 7 th March, 1993 on the existing terms and conditions. Vide order dated 4 th February, 1993, the respondent was appointed as Attorney on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,784/- per month upto 28 th July, 1993 only for a period of six months. Vide order dated 2 nd August, 1994, which was the last appointment order issued to him, the respondent was appointed as Attorney on contract basis with effect from 6 th June, 1994 on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,730/- per month and was posted in Law Department against one of the two posts meant for ST candidates, for a period of six months or till regular selection of ST category candidate, whichever was to be earlier. The services of the respondent were dispensed with vide order dated 8 th August, 1994 with immediate effect, it would be pertinent to note here that, according to the appellant, in a meeting held on 20 th July, 1994, the Selection Sub-Committee had selected two candidates to fill up the two posts meant for ST category candidates.

(2.) The respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The plea taken by the appellant before the Labour Court was that since a regular ST category candidate had been selected, it was decided to terminate the services of the respondent in terms of the appointment letter issued to him on 2 nd August, 1994. The Labour Court vide order dated 29 th November, 2000 held that dispensing with the services of the respondent was not justified and ordered his reinstatement. Being aggrieved from the award of the Labour Court, the appellant filed a writ petition which came to be dismissed while impugned judgment dated 19 th December, 2011. Being dissatisfied, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.

(3.) The Labour Court noted that the appellant had produced only six documents none of which disclosed selection of a ST category candidate for the post against which the respondent was appointed.