TELU RAM Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
LAWS(DLH)-1983-3-33
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on March 01,1983

TELU RAM Appellant
VERSUS
MUNCIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.K.Kapur - (1.)The term 'workman' used in the Rule may be capable of being read in various ways, but the Note appearing below the clause shows that it is to be applied to the case of an artisan employed on a monthly rate of pay in an industrial or work charged establishment. A driver is undoubtedly a skilled or semi-skilled person, and the word 'artisan' which means a handi-crafts man or mechanic according to the 'Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary' is wide enough to include a driver of a vehicle.
(2.)The real point which distinguishes an artisan from others is that he works with his hands, i.e., he labours manually and physically in contradistinction to others who may be employing intelligence, initiative or other attributes, which are not purely physical in nature. A driver by the very nature of his profession and employment uses his feet and hands to drive vehicles, it may be a car or truck. He is, therefore, an artisan. No doubt, he is getting a monthly rate of pay and the next question may be whether he is employed in an industrial or work charged establishment. In th,s connection, it does appear that the Municipal Corporation is a work charged establishment, because it provides certain services to the citizens, and in any event, the petitioner in question is working in the C.S.E. Department which is concerned with conservancy and sanitation. In fact, it is admitted in the reply that the petitioner is a refuse truck driver. In other words, the refuse of the city which is collected and removed by the Municipal Corporation so as to keep the streets clean and free from disease and is transported in trucks to dumping grounds is the work on which the petitioner is employed. The petitioner, therefore, very clearly, appears to be fully covered by the definition of 'workman' and hence, he is to retire at the age of 60 and not at the age of 58. Consequent to this conclusion, we have. to hold that the petitioner has to retire in 1984 and not in 1982.
(3.)We accordingly grant the writ and hold that the petitioner has to retire at the age of 60 on 30.4.1984 and we issue a mandamus placing him back in the service of the Corporation. The petitioner will get costs.
;


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