Anand Singh Bisht v. Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd

judgment.

VEENA BIRBAL, J October 8, 2010 kks/ssb

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: October 8th, 2010 + W.P.(C) 6386/2007 SHRI ANAND SINGH BISHT ..... Petitioner Through : Ms. Yasmin Zafar, Advocate versus ANAND KUMAR GAUTAM & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Sidharth Panda for Mr. R.S. Jena, Advocate for R-1 CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Veena Birbal, J 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged impugned award dated 13.12.2006 by which Labour Court-XVI, Delhi has held that the services of petitioner have not been terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the respondent/management and as such has not been granted any relief. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed by the respondent/management on 01.10.1995 as a driver but no letter of appointment was given to him. Initially, he was shown as a casual worker but later on he was confirmed on 01.09.1999 and thereafter was treated as a regular employee w.e.f. 01.02.2000. He continuously worked with the management till 28.02.2002, when his services were illegally terminated. His last drawn wages were Rs. 6616/- p.m. and a cheque of Rs. 11,645/- was given to him towards one month salary and compensation of services rendered by him w.e.f. 01.02.2000. It is alleged that respondent/ management did not take into consideration the period of service w.e.f. 01.10.1995 when he was employed. Petitioner accepted the same under protest. Petitioner served a demand notice dated 02.04.2002 through the counsel but of no result. Petitioner filed conciliation proceedings wherein statement of claim was filed by him but conciliation proceedings resulted in failure and the dispute was referred by the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi to the Labour Court for adjudication wherein petitioner filed the statement of claim alleging therein the same facts as are stated above. 3. The statement of claim filed by him before the Labour Court was opposed by the respondent/management by filing a written statement wherein it was alleged that the termination was legal and justified and that he was not entitled for any relief. The stand of management before the labour court was that in view of huge maintenance charges of Delhi office and as a measure of economy, management decided to dispose of the vehicle along with abolition of post of driver from Delhi office and as such, in terms of the appointment of petitioner, one month wages in lieu of notice along with compensation was given to him which was duly acknowledged by him, as such, petitioner was not entitled for any relief. Thereafter, issues were framed. Both the parties led evidence and ultimately Labour Court vide impugned award held that the services of petitioner had not been terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the management and no relief had been given to him. Aggrieved with the same, the present petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the petitioner had joined the services w.e.f. 1.10.1995 and was confirmed on 01.09.1999. It is contended that petitioner has been retrenched without any rhyme and reason and without payment of full compensation as provided under Section 25(F) of ID Act which is a condition precedent for retrenchment of a workman. In support of her contention, learned counsel has relied upon Haryana State Electricity Board v. Randhir Singh, Asst. Line-Man & Anr.; C.W.P. No. 2566/1982 dated 29.04.1993. 5. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent/management is that the petitioner was working as a driver w.e.f. 01.01.1999. It is contended that in view of huge maintenance charges of Delhi liaison office, as a measure of economy, the management decided to dispose of the vehicle with the abolition of post of driver from Delhi liaison office and one month's noti