Subhash Chand vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Rekha Sharma, J.—It is the admitted case of the parties that the Petitioner was employed with the Respondent as a Chowkidar w.e.f. October 20, 1989. He was a muster roll monthly paid worker and he continued as such till February 17, 1997 on which date his services were terminated. The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court with the following term of reference:

Whether the services of Shri Subhash Chand have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?

The services of the Petitioner were terminated, allegedly, on the ground that on the night intervening February 13-14, 1997 while he was on duty, a rape occurred in the premises of the school where he was deployed and hence, he was held guilty of gross misconduct. During the proceedings before the Labour Court, the Respondent''s own witness, namely, Smt. Joginder Taluja, Deputy Education Officer, South Zone, Delhi deposed in favour of the Petitioner. She stated that the workman was on rest on the night between 13th & 14th February, 1997 and that one Shri Hoshiar Singh, Chowkidar was on duty on the aforesaid night. She also stated that no charge-sheet was given to the Petitioner, nor any departmental inquiry was held against him before terminating his services. In view of the said deposition of the Respondent''s witness, the Labour Court held that the services of the Petitioners were illegally and unjustifiably terminated.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the Respondent that since the Petitioner was only a muster roll monthly paid worker, his services could be terminated without an inquiry.

It is true that Petitioner was a muster roll daily wager and hence, no inquiry was required to be conducted before his services could be terminated, but it is also true that he had worked with the Respondent for more than 7 years and as such, in view of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, his services could not be terminated without giving him one month''s notice in writing indicating the reasons for his retrenchment or paying him wages in lieu of such notice. Admittedly, this was not done.

This Court in the case of Ram Narain v. Management of Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. being WP (C) No. 15089/2006 decided on March 21, 2007 has held that, "there is no distinction in industrial law between a permanent employee and a temporary employee. As long as a person is employed to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, he is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, and will get the benefits of that Act." It has been further held that, "Section 25-F read with Section 25-B shall come in aid of even those workmen who are employed on muster roll on casual basis and their services can only be terminated by giving them notice as provided in the said sections subject of course to the condition that they have rendered more than 240 days of service in the year prior to the proposed termination."

The present case is no different from the case of Ram Narain (supra). The Petitioner had worked with the Respondent for more than 7 years and yet his services were terminated without recourse to the provisions of Sections 25B & 25F of the Act.

The Labour Court despite having given a finding in favour of the Petitioner has, instead of directing his reinstatement with consequential benefits, simply awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the awarding of a paltry sum of Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation is adding insult to injury.

For what has been noticed above, I feel that the award of the Labour Court dated May 04, 2006 in so far as it grants compensation to the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- is liable to be set-aside and the Petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement in service with full consequential benefits. Ordered accordingly.

The writ-petition is disposed of.