The central legal point established in the judgment is the social welfare aspect of the Industrial Disputes Act and the criteria for denying relief to the workman under Section 17B.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. - CM APPL. No. 28976/2020

1. This is an application filed on behalf of the respondent/workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [in short I. D. Act?]. The petitioner-corporation opposes this application.

2. To be noted, the petitioner-corporation has assailed the award dated 17.10.2019, passed by the concerned labour court, whereby, the labour court has directed the petitioner-corporation to reinstate the respondent/workman, and grant him continuity of service, full back wages, and all consequential benefits.

2.1. The record shows that the respondent/workman had joined the petitioner-corporation on 01.01.1993 as a Safai Karamchari. According to the petitioner-corporation, he was working as a daily wager, and was paid fixed wages, which were revised from time to time, in consonance with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

2.2. It appears that the respondent/workman, on account of his illness, did not attend work between 29.02.2008 and 30.08.2010. In the interregnum, the petitioner-corporation issued a show cause notice to the respondent/workman on 21.06.2010, whereby, he was, inter alia, asked to join his duties and report to the Sanitary Superintendent.

2.3. According to the petitioner-corporation, the respondent/workman neither replied to the show cause notice nor joined his duties. The petitioner-corporation, thereafter, proceeded to disengage the respondent/workman from service on 23.07.2010.

2.4. It is in this backdrop that a reference was made to the concerned labour court on 25.04.2014 by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi [GNCTD]. This reference culminated in the impugned award dated 17.10.2019.

2.5. The main plank of the petitioner-corporation?s defence, before the labour court, was that, for nearly two years, the respondent/workman had abandoned his duties and, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief. As indicated above, the labour court was not persuaded by the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner-corporation and resultantly, rendered an award in favour of the respondent/workman.

2.6. Before I proceed further, an important aspect, which has come through, and something which the labour court has observed, is contained in the testimony of the witness cited by the petitioner-corporation, namely, Hoshiyar Singh, Sanitary Superintendent [MW-1] who inter alia made the following crucial statements during the course of his deposition:

(i) The respondent/workman worked continuously and uninterruptedly between 01.01.1993 and 29.02.2008.

(ii) The respondent/workman fell sick on 29.02.2008 and remained unwell till 29.08.2010.

(iii) The respondent/workman had lodged his medical certificate as well as fitness certificate with the petitioner-corporation in respect of the aforesaid period.

(iv) The respondent/workman?s name was deleted from the rolls of the petitioner-corporation w.e.f. 29.02.2008

(v) No notice or pay in lieu of notice was either offered or paid to the respondent/workman.

(vi) No service compensation/reinstatement compensation was either paid or offered to the respondent/workman.

(vii) The respondent/workman was neither served with a charge-sheet nor was any enquiry held before terminating his services.

2.7. Given this position, the argument which Ms. Namrata Mukim, who appears on behalf of petitioner-corporation, advanced before me that the respondent/workman was not entitled to any relief either in respect of the instant application or the final relief because he had abandoned his work for nearly two years seems, to say the very least, tenuous. To my mind, respondent?s/workman?s absence from work due to sickness which is made known to the employer cannot be equated with abandonment.

3. That being said, this is an aspect which I would examine, in greater detail, when the writ petition is, finally, adjudicated upon. At this juncture, all that I am required to examine is the viability of the application filed by the respondent/workman under Section 17B of the I.D. Act.

3.1 In this beha