CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2009) 10 DEL CK 0171

Anil Sharma vs Central Soil and Material Research Station

Delhi High Court · Decided on 13 October 2009

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.N. Aggarwal, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 12355 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 387 words

S.N. Aggarwal, J.

CM. No. 12756/2009 in W P.(C.) No. 12355/2009

1.

This is an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in re-filing of the petition.

Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, delay in re-filing of the petition is condoned.

W.P.(C.) No. 12355/2009

The petitioner workman in this writ petition seeks to challenge an industrial award dated 30.06.2008 in I.D. No. 84/1996 passed by the CGIT, New Delhi, awarding him compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of his claim for reinstatement and back wages for alleged termination of his services by the management of the respondent w.e.f. 15.04.1990.

2.

Heard on admission.

3.

The petitioner was employed by the respondent management in its Canteen as Coupon Clerk on daily wage basis w.e.f. 23.04.1989. His appointment was for a specified period. He was disengaged from service after the period for which he was employed was over. The petitioner claimed it to be termination and raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government in the Government of NCT of Delhi for adjudication to the Labour Court.

4.

I have gone through the impugned award carefully. The entire award is loaded against the petitioner. The Court below has found that the petitioner was, in fact, appointed as a daily wager and when a selection against the post on which he was appointed on daily wage basis was made pursuant to interviews held on 31.07.1989, his services were disengaged by the respondent management. All the contentions raised by the petitioner were duly considered by the Labour Court. The compensation of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded in favour of the petitioner only because the Court below noticed that the notice of termination was not given to the petitioner and for that reason, his disengagement was held to be illegal retrenchment. I am of the view that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned award particularly when it has awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the petitioner even after holding that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager and was disengaged after the period of his employment was over.

In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.