M C D Vs. SATISH KUMAR WORKMAN
LAWS(DLH)-2007-10-270
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on October 29,2007

M.C.D. THR. ITS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SLUM AND JJ WING Appellant
VERSUS
SATISH KUMAR, WORKMAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE petitioner/management has assailed an award dated 8th december, 2006 passed by the Labour Court against the petitioner holding inter alia that the termination of the respondent workman was illegal and unjustified. With these observations, the respondent workman was directed to be reinstated in service along with 40% back wages.
(2.) THE main ground taken in the writ petition to assail the impugned award is that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that there was no justification in the act of the workman in denying fresh appointment offered to him. It is held in the impugned award that the offer made by the petitioner to the respondent workman was subject to the condition that he was would not move the court for any benefits regarding his previous service. It has been rightly observed by the Labour Court that on the face of it the aforesaid condition was illegal and could not be imposed on any person to forgo his legal right to move the court. There is no illegality in the aforesaid observation as any such condition sought to be imposed by the petitioner on the respondent/ workman amounts to putting a fetter on his legal rights which is contrary to public policy.
(3.) THE other ground taken by the petitioner is that the respondent workman has no vested right for regular appointment merely on the strength of daily wage appointment offered to the respondent workman from time to time. A bare perusal of the impugned award shows that the respondent workman has been directed to be reinstated with consequential benefits, including continuity of service. The petitioner has not been directed to give a regular appointment to the respondent/ workman. The only basis for directing reinstatement of the respondent/ workman is that the petitioner sought to terminate the services of the respondent/ workman without complying with the provisions of Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter in short referred to as `the act'), which is not permissible in law. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the provisions of Section 25f of the Act will come into play only if it is a case of regular appointment. This is contrary to the tenets of law and settled labour jurisprudence as compliance of Section 25f is mandatory and it has no relationship with the nature of the appointment. Even in the case of a temporary, casual or muster roll employee the conditions laid down in the provisions of Section 25f of the Act must be complied with before terminating the services of a workman.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.