NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. HARISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Reference was made to the Tribunal as to whether non-employment of respondent-workman by petitioner-Management is legal and justified and the said Reference has been answered vide impugned Award of 3rd Nov., 2011 with direction to petitioner-Management to take respondent-workman on its regular Muster Roll as per his seniority in pursuance to its Circular of 11th April, 1996 (Ex.WW1/7). The undisputed facts, as noted in the impugned Award, are as under:-

(2.) The stand taken by petitioner-Management was that as per the Recruitment Rules, respondent-workman was not entitled to be put on regular Muster Roll as he did not fulfil the pre-conditions for being put on Muster Roll. Petitioner had relied upon its undated Resolution (Ex.MW1/2) which requires that a workman ought to have been completed 500 days or more upto 31st Dec., 2000.

(3.) The challenge to impugned Award in this petition is on the ground that respondent-workman is not qualified to be put on regular Muster Roll as he is not eligible as per the applicable Resolution (Ex.MW1/2) and the Tribunal has erred in discarding this Resolution (Ex.MW1/2) by summarily brushing it aside as irrelevant. So, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in view of Resolution (Ex.MW1/2), respondent-workman is not entitled to be put on regular Muster Roll. It is pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that the Circular of 11th April, 1996 (Ex.WW1/7) relied upon by the Tribunal is not applicable as it was not approved by the Competent Authority of petitioner-Management and this Circular of the year 1996 is to be read in conjunction with the Resolution (Ex.MW1/2). Thus, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that impugned Award deserves to be set aside.