AMARJIT SINGH Vs. AIIMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected Writ Petitions, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, namely W.P.(C) No. 18004/2004, Amarjit Singh v. AIIMS &Anr., and W.P.(C) No. 18551/2004, Ved Prakash v. AIIMS &Anr., assail two separate Awards, both dtd. 13/2/2004, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labor Court No. IV, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Industrial Dispute No. 1371/1996 and Industrial Dispute No. 1190/1996, respectively. Since both Writ Petitions arise out of substantially identical facts, involve common questions of fact and law, and challenge Awards passed by the same Tribunal against the same Management on the same date, they were taken up together for hearing and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Amarjit Singh, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 18004/2004, claims to have been engaged as a Tractor Driver in the Civil Engineering Department of the Respondent/Management, AIIMS, in November 1993. According to him, he continuously discharged his duties until his services were orally terminated on 21/6/1995 without notice, without assigning any reason and without payment of retrenchment compensation. Prior thereto, he had served a notice dtd. 9/6/1995 alleging that he was being made to work under different names, which was followed by a demand notice dtd. 3/7/1995. During the conciliation proceedings, the Respondent, by its reply dtd. 3/8/1995, stated that it maintained computerized records relating to the engagement of labor and that the same could be produced, if required. As the conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government, by order dtd. 29/8/1996, referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to Labor Court No. IV, Delhi, where it was registered as I.D. No. 1371/1996. The Petitioner thereafter filed his Statement of Claim seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages, contending, inter alia, that he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in the year preceding the termination of his employment and that the termination was in violation of Ss. 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Respondent filed its Written Statement disputing the claim, while reiterating that it possessed computerized employment records. During the proceedings before the Labor Court, the Petitioner also served a notice dtd. 12/7/1999 requiring the Respondent to produce the attendance, wage and other employment records. The parties thereafter led evidence, culminating in the Award dtd. 13/2/2004.

(3.) The factual background in W.P.(C) No. 18551/2004 is substantially similar. Ved Prakash claims to have been engaged as a daily-rated Lift Operator in the Engineering Services Department of the Respondent with effect from 1/7/1992 and that his services were orally terminated on 23/7/1995 without notice or retrenchment compensation. Following the failure of conciliation proceedings initiated upon his demand notice dtd. 30/9/1995, the appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to Labor Court No. IV, Delhi, by order dtd. 13/8/1996, where it was registered as I.D. No. 1190/1996. He likewise sought reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages on the ground that he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service and that the termination of his services was contrary to Ss. 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Respondent contested the claim, though admitting his engagement with effect from 1/7/1992. Ved Prakash also served a notice dtd. 12/7/1999 calling upon the Respondent to produce the relevant employment records. Evidence was thereafter led by both sides, culminating in the Award dtd. 13/2/2004.