Termination without valid reason and entitlement of wages for muster roll employees.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present petition filed under the Article 226 of The Constitution of India emanates from the award dated 07.03.2003 ("the impugned award") passed by The Learned Presiding Officer, The Industrial Tribunal no. II, Karkarduma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No. 16/98. Vide the impugned Award, the learned Labour Court was pleased to decide the terms of reference in favour of the Respondent/management.

2. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the Petitioner/workman has preferred the present petition, seeking an appropriate writ for quashing the impugned award and subsequent reinstatement of the Petitioner/workman in service with all consequential benefits.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION

3. The Petitioner/workman joined the Respondent/management as a Beldar w.e.f. 08.08.1996 on a monthly paid/muster roll basis. The service of the Petitioner/workman was terminated w.e.f. 15.05.1997 vide a termination letter dated 14.05.1997.

4. The Petitioner/workman moved his union to raise an industrial dispute on his behalf with respect to non-regularisation, denial of equal pay for equal work, and termination of service. The union served upon the Respondent/management a legal demand notice dated 09.08.1997 vide which cause of the Petitioner was espoused.

5. On 19.08.1997, an industrial dispute was raised by the Petitioner/workman before the Conciliation officer by filing Statement of claims. On being satisfied that an industrial dispute exists between the Respondent/management and the Petitioner/workman, the matter was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Sections 10(1)(c), 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1945 ("the I.D. Act") with the following Terms of Reference

"1. "Whether the services of Shri Bhola Thakur daily rated/casual muster roll workman 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?"

2. "Whether Shri Bhola Thakur is entitled to wages as admissible to regular employees for his muster roll employment i.e. 8.8.96 to 14.5.97, and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?"

6. The Petitioner/workman filed the statement of claims wherein he alleged that he was discriminately denied the benefits of regularization and was illegally terminated by the Management/Respondent without complying with Sections 25-F, G, H of the I.D. Act. On the other hand, the Management/Respondent filed their written statement, wherein averments made by the Petitioner were denied. For furthering his case, the Petitioner examined himself as WW-1, while Management/Respondent produced Sh. Ravi Das as MW1, Sh. R.K. Dubas as MW2, Sh. G.S. Yadav as MW3.

7. Based on the arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Labour Court held vide impugned award dated 07.03.2003 that the signature of the Commissioner on Exhibit WW1/7 is evidently not genuine. It was further held that the requirement of conducting an enquiry is dispensed since the Commissioner himself directed removal of the petitioner on grounds that his signature on the application is false. Therefore, the Respondent/Management had sufficient reason to remove the Petitioner from muster roll.

8. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned award has preferred this writ petition, challenging the legality of the award.

SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

9. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted before the Court that the impugned award suffers from perversity since the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the evidence brought before it. The counsel has asserted that the learned Labour Court overlooked the fact that the Petitioner was appointed through the Executive Engineer and therefore he had no means to verify the authenticity of the signature attested on the application. Learned counsel further submitted that no vigilance enquiry w