SHIV PAL SINGH Vs. SHRIRAM SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) FOR the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the order dated 15th October 2008 is hereby recalled. The petitioner is given liberty to address arguments on merits.

(3.) THE application stands disposed of. CMM 570/2007 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 17th February 2007 passed by the first appellate Court (ARCT) dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of learned Additional Rent Controller dated 29th November 2006 allowing the eviction petition of the respondent. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the premises bearing No. D -4, Sri Colony, University Road, Delhi -110007 was allotted to the petitioner by virtue of his employment with the respondent on 29th July 1988. The petitioner's services were terminated by the respondent after holding an inquiry, on 7th June 1994. He was asked to vacate the said premises but he declined to do so and an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(i) of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short, 'DRC Act') was filed. The petitioner took the plea that he had challenged his dismissal from service and in view of the provisions of Section 14(9) of DRC Act, since his termination from service was in dispute, the provisions of Section 14(1)(i) were not applicable in his case. However, these arguments did not find favour with the learned ARC. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner before learned ARCT, the learned ARCT also returned a finding against the petitioner, hence the present petition. 3. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 7th June 1994 after holding an inquiry. The petitioner's dismissal from service was challenged before the learned Labour Court and the Labour Court vide its order dated 8th April 2005, on the issue of inquiry, gave a finding in favour of the workman and held that the management had failed to prove that the inquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for passing an interim award in his favour. Vide order dated 17th April 2007 on the application of the workman for interim, the management was directed to pay Rs. 2500/ - per month as subsistence allowance.