UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. RAM KISHAN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present petition under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/Delhi University impugns award dated 02.09.2002 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-II, Delhi in ID No.44/2000 whereunder the learned Labour Court after coming to the conclusion that the services of the respondent/workman had been illegally terminated w.e.f. 01.02.1998, directed that he would be deemed to be in service from 01.02.1998. The learned Labour Court consequently directed that all consequential reliefs and wages would be payable to the respondent/workman.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while impugning the award states that the same is based on a wholly erroneous premise that the respondent/workman was in continuous service of the petitioner from 01.01.1990 till 01.02.1998, on which date he claims to have been illegally terminated. He states that even though the respondent had in his claim statement made a bald assertion that after having been appointed as a Mali w.e.f. 01.01.1990 he had continued to work without any interruption till his illegal termination on 01.02.1998, the documents filed by him in support of his claim, itself belied his stand. He draws my attention to the three experience certificates that were filed by the respondent in support of his claim statement and states that the said certificates in itself show that the respondent was in service only for specific periods from 01.11.1991 to 31.05.1992, 11.05.1993 to 31.07.1993 and 02.08.1995 to 31.01.1996 and in these circumstances, there was no question of him being terminated on 01.02.1998.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had in its written statement filed before the learned Labour Court specifically denied the respondent's bald averment and had categorically stated that he had worked only for short periods between 11.05.1993 to 31.07.1993, 11.05.1994 to 08.08.1994, 19.09.1996 to 29.11.1997, 10.02.1998 to 09.03.1998 and 04.05.1998 to 03.07.1998. He thus submits that the learned Labour Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent/workman was in continuous employment of the petitioner from 01.01.1990 to 01.02.1998, by wrongly placing the onus on the petitioner to disapprove the assertion of the respondent/workman that he was in continuous employment from 01.01.1990 to 01.02.1998. He, thus, prays that the impugned award which is based on the presumption that the respondent was in continuous service from 01.01.1990 to 01.02.1998 be set aside.