I.S. Mehta, J.:-

1. The present petitioner, i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner-management’) has preferred the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of the impugned Award dated 11.11.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. IX, Karkardooma, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator’) in I.D. No. 1932/94.

2. The brief facts as stated are that the respondent-workman, i.e., Shri Rishi Pal Singh is alleged to be in the employment of Municipal Corporation of Delhi as Mali/Beldar w.e.f. 26.03.1990 in CL Zone on the Muster Roll Basis and was being paid wages as fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The respondent-workman had an unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to his credit till 27.07.1991. The petitioner-management without assigning any valid reason terminated the services of the respondent-workman on 27.07.1991. The respondent-workman claims to have completed 240 days of service with the petitioner-management in a year prior to his termination. The petitioner-management instead of regularising the respondent-workman terminated his services despite the respondent-workman having acquired the status of a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and allegedly violated the resolution No. 1002 of the Standing Committee of the MCD and Section 25-F (a),(b) & (c), and 25- G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rules 76, 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central) Rules, 1957. The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred by the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi, vide reference No. F-24(2838)94-Lab./50496-501 dated 24.10.1994 to the Labour Court for adjudication on the following terms of reference:

“Whether the services of Shri Rishi Pal Singh 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 respondent-workman filed his statement of claim before the Labour Court, the petitioner-management filed its written statements and thereafter, rejoinder on behalf of the respondent-workman was filed and after framing the issues, both the parties led their respective evidence on their behalf and thereafter, the Labour Court passed the impugned Award dated 11.11.2002.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid Award dated 11.11.2002, the petitioner, i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi, has preferred the present Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel causing appearance on behalf of the petitioner management, i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi has contended that prima facie it is for the respondent-workman to prove his status of a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned counsel further submitted that in the instant case, the respondent workman was engaged for a specific work and for a specific period and after completing the work, the workman has left the employment of the petitioner-management and the management has not terminated the services of the workman as alleged by the respondent-workman. The learned counsel of the petitioner-management further submitted that the impugned Award passed by the Industrial Adjudicator is bad in law and the Industrial Adjudicator exceeded its jurisdiction and reached the wrong conclusion, which needs to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf the respondent workman has submitted that the petitioner-management has suppressed the material facts and taken a false plea that the respondent-workman was engaged for a specific period, whereas the workman was in the employment with the petitioner-management, i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi as Mali/Beldar in its Horticulture Department w.e.f. 26.03.1990 in CL zone on muster roll basis and he remained in the employment of th