- (1.) This appeal on grant of special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by the Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi against Respondent No. 1, who is the only contesting party, has brought in challenge the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 93 of 1982* by which the High Court directed reinstatement of Respondent No. 1 in service with continuity entitling him to receive all salaries and allowances from the appellant-Corporation. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant-Corporation against the said order, a few relevant introductory facts need to be noticed at the outset. Background Facts :
(2.) Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent-workman') was appointed by the appellant-Corporation on the temporary post of Section Officer (Civil) on 5-5-1964 with the condition that he would be considered for confirmation after one year of satisfactory service. It is the case of the appellant-Corporation that the respondent-workman was never considered for confirmation. On 1-8-1964 he was informed that his services were not required by the Corporation w.e.f. 1-9-1964. Thus he ceased to be the employee of the appellant-Corporation from that date. However, from 1-10-1964 he was re-appointed on a vacant post caused by the termination of services of another employee. It is not in dispute between the parties that he continued to be in the service of the appellant-Corporation without any break till 31-3-1965. According to the appellant-Corporation, he was again re-employed on 1-4-1965 and he continued to be in service till 29-4-1966 when his services were terminated. It becomes at once clear that though, according to the appellant-Corporation, the respondent-workman's services were terminated on 31-3-1965 and he was re-employed on the next day i.e. 1-4-1965, in substance there was no break in his service. It is, therefore, to be taken as a well established fact on record that from 1-10-1964 till 29-4-1966 for about 18 months the respondent-workman was in continuous service as a temporary Section Officer (Civil) and was working on a vacant substantive post caused by the termination of services of another employee.
(3.) On account of the aforesaid termination of service, the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute and got it referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court, Delhi. The terms of reference were as follows : "Whether Prem Chand Gupta, Section Officer (Overseer) has been wrongly and/or illegally discharged from service and if so, what relief is he entitled - The Labour Court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that as the respondent-workman's services were terminated by the appellant-Corporation in exercise of its powers under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') and the said action of the appellant-Corporation was not punitive in nature, the respondent-workman was not entitled to any relief. However, the Labour Court further held on facts that the respondent-workman could be said to have been terminated from service without payment of retrenchment compensation as a condition precedent to such retrenchment. Still it was held that the said retrenchment could not be covered under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'I. D. Act') as he was not terminated due to the staff being in excess of the requirement of the Corporation. Thus even on the ground of violation of Section 25-F he was not entitled to any relief. The said decision was rendered on 7-1-1970.;