AUROBINDO COLLEGE Vs. KALLAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are directed against the Award dated 9.8.2005 in I.D.No.14/2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IV, Delhi whereby the respondent has been granted compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on a finding that the termination of the services of the respondent without paying minimum wages was an act of unfair labour practice and against the principles of natural justice. The respondent had been engaged by the petitioner, a constituent college of the University of Delhi, on a day-to-day basis in the absence of one Mukesh, who was a Safai Karamchari in the college. Mukesh had not been keeping well and he had been absenting from his duties frequently and eventually he resigned on 8.11.2000. The respondent performed the duties of a Safai Karamchari on daily wages between 1997 to 2001. The college advertised the post after Mukesh resigned from the post. Admittedly, the respondent did not apply for the post. The respondent was not appointed following the procedure laid down for selection and employment for the post of Safai Karamchari in the petitioner college. The respondent worked in the college till 30.4.2001. He raised an industrial dispute. Vide a notification dated 7.6.2002 the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication in the following terms: "Whether the services of Shri Kallan s/o Shri Janki Dass have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and, if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief alongwith consequential benefit in terms of existing Laws/Government Notification and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect."

(2.) The respondent in the statement of claim alleged that he has been a victim of unfair labour practice inasmuch as minimum wages prescribed by law has not been paid to him, that he was not given leaves and holidays as provided for in the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, that the management/petitioners became unhappy when the respondent made demands for his dues and terminated his services without assigning any reason on which the respondent issued a legal notice claiming reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner management denied the claim of the respondent by asserting that the respondent was not a regular employee in the college, that no legal provision of any kind has been violated, that the petitioner is not covered by the Minimum Wages Act and that the respondent did not work for 240 days or more in any of the years and, therefore, was not entitled to the relief of reinstatement and back wages.

(3.) Before the Labour Court both sides produced affidavits in evidence. The witnesses were cross-examined. The Labour Court observed that taking work from the worker for three continuous year without giving him minimum wages and without regularising him was an act of unfair labour practice. It, however, lamented that the post had since been advertised and had been filled on regular basis and, therefore, the respondent could not be regularised. The Labour Court, however, observed that since the respondent had worked for three years continuously, his termination was illegal and unjustified and directed payment of compensation amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. It was the workman's case that he had been working with the management since 1997 as a daily wager. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court has made no reference to the affidavit of the management. The witness of the management, who is the Administrative Officer of the college, has stated that the respondent was engaged only when Mukesh went on leave on account of his illness and that the respondent was engaged only on daily wages and was paid against vouchers. The vouchers were filed before the Labour Court. They were not disputed in the cross-examination of this witness. From the vouchers produced before the Labour Court, the total number of days on which the respondent worked with the petitioner college could be ascertained. In the present writ petitions the petitioners have given a chart prepared on the basis of the vouchers showing the number of days during which the respondent was employed with the petitioner. The chart is as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1525_ILRDLH15_2006Html1.htm</FRM>