Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Gaurang Kanth, J.
Naresh Pal – Appellant
Versus
Food Corporation of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 15941 of 2004
Decided On : 16-05-2023
Termination - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 25-G, 25-H - [VIOLATION OF SECTION 25-H OF THE I.D. ACT] - 25-G, 25-H - The court examined whether the termination of the Petitioner was in violation of Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. The Petitioner failed to prove that the termination was in violation of Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. The impugned Award was based on the correct appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. The court found no evidence to prove that the termination was in violation of Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. The court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner joined the service of the Respondent as a daily rated muster roll Driver and alleged that his services were terminated without a valid reason. The industrial dispute raised was regarding the justification of the termination and the relief entitled to the workman.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner failed to prove that the termination was in violation of Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. The impugned Award was based on the correct appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. The court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the termination of the Petitioner was in violation of Section 25-H of the I.D. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Petitioner failed to prove that there was any violation of Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. The impugned Award was based on the correct appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petition.
JUDGMENT
Gaurang Kanth, J.
1. In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner/Workman is assailing the Award dated 27.01.2004 (`Impugned Award'), passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, New Delhi, in I.D. No. 100/1996 titled as `Naresh Pal Vs The General Manager, M/s FCI Project Implementation'.
RELEVANT FACTS FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION
2. It is the case of the Petitioner/Workman that he joined the service of the Respondent/Management as a daily rated muster roll Driver w.e.f 01.02.1995. His last drawn wages were Rs.2100/-. It is the allegation of the Petitioner/Workman that the Respondent/Management terminated his service w.e.f 09.05.1995 without assigning any valid reason thereof.
3. Being aggrieved by the termination, the Petitioner/Workman raised an industrial dispute. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No. L-22012/117/96-IR(C-II) dated 06.11.1996 has referred the following reference to the learned Industrial Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Management FCI in terminating the services of Sh. Naresh Pal, Driver w.e.f 09.05.1995 is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"
4. The Petitioner/Workman filed statement of claim alleging that he joined the service of the Respondent/Management w.e.f 01.02.1995 as a daily rated muster roll Driver. He was being paid a fixed salary of Rs. 2100/- p.m where as his counterparts, doing similar work were paid salaries in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 with usual allowance admissible under the Rules. The Petitioner/Workman further alleged that his services were terminated w.e.f 09.05.1995 without assigning any valid reason thereof. It is the case of the Petitioner/Workman that the post against which he was working is of a regular and permanent nature and still existing. The Workman has acquired the status of a permanent employee after 90 days of continuous employment as provided in Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 applicable to the Workman and Management. The Petitioner/Workman further alleged that the Respondent/Management with ulterior motive and malafide intention had showed in their record that the workman was employed only for 60 days w.e.f. 1.2.1995. He was paid 38 days wages after termination of his services, amounting to Rs.2660/- by a voucher. The Petitioner/Workman claimed that he was challaned by the Traffic Police on 06.04.1995 when he was driving Respondent/Management's vehicle Jeep No. DL-3CE 7250. In another occasion on 04.05.1995, while the Petitioner/Workman was driving the said Jeep, it met with an accident and the Petitioner/Workman had lodged a report with the Police Station Chanakyapuri on the same day i.e. 04.05.1995, in this regard. These incidents show that the Petitioner/Workman was in employment with the Respondent/Management in the month of April 1995 and May 1995. The Petitioner/Workman further alleged that he has not been paid wages for the month of April/May 1995. The Petitioner/Workman has been meted out with hostile discrimination as juniors to him have been retained in service and he has been thrown out of the Job. The Respondent/Management failed to display any seniority list. The termination of the Petitioner/Workman amounts to retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (`I.D. Act'), however, no notice was given to him, no retrenchment compensation was offered to him at the time of termination of his services. The Petitioner/Workman alleged that impugned termination of the workman's services was violative of section 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act.
5. Initially, the Respondent/Management was proceeded ex-parte and ex-parte award dated 28.02.2001 was passed. The Respondent/Management challenged the said ex-parte award dated 28.02.2001 before this Court in W.P(C) No. 6119/2002. This Court, vide order dated 15.07.2003, set aside the said ex-
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the definition of 'retrenchment' under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act in determining the....
Non-renewal of contract does not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act.
Point of law :Labour Law - There is no proof that the workman has worked for 240 days and, therefore, it was held by the Labour Court that there is no proof that the workman was working continuously ....
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish continuous employment and violation of labor laws, and mere non-production of documents by the employer may not suffice to prove the claim.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in order to prove violation of Sections 25F, G & H of the I.D. Act, the Petitioner must demonstrate that she had worked for 240 days in a cale....
Termination of service It cannot be presumed that any junior is considered without there being any evidence on record and the learned Single Judge has therefore rightly come to the conclusion that th....
Violation of provisions under Sections 25F and 25H of the ID Act led to the direction for reinstatement without backwages.
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
