Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Ram Mehar – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
LPA 675 of 2022
Decided On : 05-04-2023
Abandonment of Service - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 10(1)(c), Section 12(5)
Fact of the Case:
The Workman, a Khalasi in the services of Delhi Development Authority, was transferred to a different division but was not allowed to join duty. After about 3 years, he served a demand notice claiming reinstatement. The conciliation proceedings failed, and the matter was referred for adjudication. The Labour Court directed reinstatement without back-wages, which was set aside by the Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Single Judge found that the Workman failed to prove that he was not allowed to join back duty. The Court concluded that the Workman abandoned the service and was not entitled to any relief.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Workman abandoned his service or his services were terminated illegally. The Court also considered the applicability of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Workman failed to prove that he was prevented from joining duty, and his unexplained delay of 3 years in seeking reinstatement indicated abandonment of service. The Court also considered the absence of a termination order and the employer's attempt to resolve the issue during conciliation proceedings.
Final Decision: The Single Judge's decision to set aside the Labour Court's award was upheld, and the Workman was not entitled to any relief. The Workman's services till superannuation were considered for terminal dues, but no back-wages were awarded.
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The Appellant before this Court has filed this present Appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered on 12.09.2022 passed by Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 12951/2006 titled D.D.A. vs. Ram Mehar, by which the Learned Single Judge has set aside the Award passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-X, Karkardooma, Delhi in Industrial Dispute No. 274/1996 titled as Management of Delhi Development Autority Vs. Its Workman Sh. Ram Meher.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant before this Court was appointed as a Khalasi in the services of Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as "DDA") on 01.09.1983. He was drawing his salary in the regular Pay Scale, and he was posted in the Horticulture Department under the Junior Engineer (Electrical). The Appellant worked in the Horticulture Department from 01.09.1983 to 07.08.1991 in Division No. 2 of the Horticulture Department.
3. The facts further reveal that the Appellant was transferred from Horticulture Department Division No. 2 to Division No. 5 vide order No. 1032 dated 08.08.1991.
4. The Appellant joined on 28.08.1991 at Division No. 5, and at the time of his joining, he was directed to report to work under Mr. M. C. Gupta, Assistant Engineer (Electrical).
5. The case of the Workman is that he was not allowed to resume duty by the Assistant Engineer Mr. M. C. Gupta, and the case of the management that the Workman never reported on duty before the Assistant Engineer Mr. M. C. Gupta in spite of the fact that clear directions were issued to him.
6. The Workman allegedly did not attend duty, and his name was struck off from the rolls of the DDA.
7. The facts of the case further reveal that the Workman took shelter of the statutory provisions as contained under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as "I.D. Act") by approaching the Labour Commissioner after about 3 years.
8. The facts of the case further reveal that the Workman after about 3 years served a demand notice dated 14.12.1994 claiming his reinstatement in service and the case of the Workman is that the DDA did not respond to the legal notice served in the matter.
9. The Workman thereafter took shelter of the provisions of I.D. Act and approached the Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer. The conciliation proceedings resulted in failure.
10. Another important aspect of the case as reflected from the record is that the DDA/Management issued 2 legal notices dated 24.04.1996 and 23.05.1995 when the matter was pending before the Conciliation Officer directing the Workman to join back on duty. However, the Workman in spite of the receipt of legal notices did not resume his duties.
11. The conciliation proceedings resulted in failure and the appropriate government powered a reference for adjudication in terms of Section 10 (1) (c) and Section 12(5) of the I.D. Act. The reference forwarded vide order dated 24.10.1996 is reproduced as under:
"Whether Sh. Ram Meher has abandoned his job or his services 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?"
12. The matter was adjudicated by the Labour Court and the Workman came up with the plea that he was not permitted to join Division No.5 in spite of the fact that he reported his joining before Mr. M. C. Gupta and the Management pleaded before the Labour Court that it is case of abandonment from service and the Workman never reported for joining and also never reported for joining even when 2 notices were served to him during conciliation proceedings.
13. The Labour Court after conducting full-fledged trial passed an Award in the matter directing reinstatement of the Workman without back-wages and also awarded a cost of 10,000/- as cost of litigation. Paragraph Nos. 9, 10 & 11 of the Award read as under:
"9. From the above sta
The judgment established that an employee's services cannot be terminated without following due process of law, and unexplained delay in seeking reinstatement may indicate abandonment of service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employer must follow the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act before terminating the service of an employee, and failure to do so may entit....
The termination of employment must be in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement depending on the circumstances.
The duty of the employer to re-engage the workman and the requirement of substantial evidence to prove abandonment.
Termination without due process violates principles of natural justice, necessitating notice and inquiry; compensation awarded due to managerial failure to follow procedure.
Absence from duty for an extended period can amount to voluntary abandonment of service, negating the need for disciplinary actions prior to termination.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
