LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-185

SOUDAN SINGH Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

Decided On September 24, 2014
Soudan Singh Appellant
V/S
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has assailed the judgment dated 25th November, 2013 of this court passed in W.P.(C) No. 1492/2002. By this judgment, the learned Single Judge of this court modified the industrial award dated 27th February, 2001 directing the University of Delhi to reinstate the Appellant - workman with full backwages and continuity of service. Instead of this award, the learned Single Judge directed the award of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ - to the appellant. It was further directed that this amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - may not be adjusted against the amount paid by the University of Delhi in compliance with the order under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act while making payment of the compensation.

(2.) IT is undisputed that the appellant was employed as a Peon in the Department of Social Work w.e.f. 30th October, 1985 on daily wages on a consolidated salary of Rs. 500/ - per month. His emoluments were increased from time to time till he was confirmed as a Class IV employee in the pay -scale of Rs. 750 - 1200/ - per month. On 30th August, 1990, the appellant had fallen sick and applied for medical leave. He was operated in St. Stephens' Hospital, Delhi on 24th September, 1990. After recovery, on 5th November, 1990, when the appellant reported for duty, he was orally told that his services stood terminated. As the demand notice dated 27th March, 1992 did not bring any fruitful results, the appellant filed industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal and culminated in the aforenoticed award dated 27th February, 2001.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the appeal before us, we had referred the matter for mediation with the consent of both the parties by an order dated 30th May, 2014. We have received a failure report from the mediation. The learned counsel for the appellant would make a grievance that the respondent was not up to examining any reasonable reasons for settlement.