Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 2110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
I.S.MEHTA, J
ASHOKA HOTEL - Petitioner
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 2800/2004
Decided on : 12.08.2015
Ms. Amit Seth, Advocate
Ms. S. Janani, Advocate for R-2.
The completion of 240 days of continuous service entitles the workman to protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the appropriate relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Termination of Workman's Service - Section 25-F, Section 2(oo)(bb) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 25-F and Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and their interpretation in the context of the termination of the workman's service. The court emphasized the importance of completing 240 days of continuous service for attaining a different status with the management and the protection provided under Section 25-F. The court also highlighted the definition of 'retrenchment' under Section 2(oo) and the violation of Section 25-F by the petitioner-management. The judgment reaffirmed the appropriate relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages for the workman.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-workman alleged that his services were terminated without notice or notice-pay in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner-management argued that the workman was engaged on a temporary basis and had not completed 240 days of service, thus not eligible for regularization.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent-workman had completed 457 days of continuous service with the management, entitling him to reinstatement with full back-wages. The court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner-management.
Issues: The issues included whether the workman's services were terminated illegally or unjustifiably, whether the workman had completed 240 days of service, and the interpretation of the terms of reference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of completing 240 days of continuous service for attaining a different status with the management and the protection provided under Section 25-F. The court also highlighted the violation of Section 25-F by the petitioner-management and reaffirmed the appropriate relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages for the workman.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner-management, upholding the impugned order and the Award in favor of the respondent-workman.
I. S. MEHTA, J.
1. The present petitioner, i.e., management of M/s Ashoka Hotel, 50-B, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi – 110021 (hereinafter referred to as the „petitioner-management?) has preferred the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order of Reference dated 09.10.2000 made by Secretary (Labour), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi vide reference No. F.24 (3302)/2000-Lab/34022-26, its consequential order dated 03.12.2001 passed by Shri Brijesh Sethi, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VII, Delhi debarring Shri Saran Suri, Advocate from putting in appearance under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the impugned Award dated 16.05.2003 passed by Shri C.K. Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VII, Delhi against the petitioner-management by reinstating the respondent-workman with full back-wages and continuity of service.
2. The brief facts stated are that the respondent-workman, Shri Naveen Manchanda has alleged that he worked as Typist/Clerk in Ashoka Hotel for a period of more than 480 days in different spells of time from 22.12.1997 to 18.05.1999. The petitioner, i.e., management of Ashoka Hotel without giving any prior notice or notice-pay in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 terminated the services of the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman alleged that he had completed 240 days of work in the calendar year 1998. The said claim was not accepted by the management and consequently, the Secretary (Labour), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi referred the said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court on the following terms:
“Whether the services of Sh. Naveen Manchanda 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 petitioner-management, i.e., management of Ashoka Hotel, in its Written Statements qua against the respondent-workman filed before the learned Labour Court did not specifically deny respondent-workman’s engagement with the petitioner-management as typist/clerk for the specific period which is given as under:
S. No. Period of Engagement No. of days
1. 22.12.97 to 21.02.98 62 days
2. 23.02.98 to 22.04.98 59 days
3. 24.04.98 to 23.06.98 61 days
4. 25.06.98 to 24.08.98 61 days
5. 26.08.98 to 25.10.98 61 days
6. 01.11.98 to 01.01.99 61 days
7. 11.01.99 to 10.03.99 59 days
8. 19.03.99 to 18.05.99 61 days
It is further argued by the petitioner-management that the respondent-workman was working as casual worker and he did not complete 240 days of service and his contract ended with each period of work and, therefore, the case is covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is not retrenchment as the respondent-workman had not rendered continuous service and even if he did so, it does not make him eligible to be regularised.
Thereafter, the respondent-workman in support of his claim filed an affidavit dated 02.05.2002 by way of evidence. Subsequently, the petitioner-management was proceeded ex-parte on 09.12.2002. The management did not prefer to move any application for setting-aside the ex-parte order made on 09.12.2002. Thereafter, one Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, i.e., authorized representative of the petitioner-management filed an authority letter to represent the petitioner-management before the learned Labour Court and also placed some documents of the respondent-workman on record and after concluding the arguments, the impugned
Award dated 16.05.2003 was passed by the learned Labour Court. The petitioner-management, aggrieved from the said order dated 03.12.2001 and the impugned Award dated 16.05.2003, preferred the present Writ Petition.
3. (i) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-management, Mr. Amit Seth, pointed out that under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, once the permission of engaging the coun
