IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Gaurang Kanth, J.
Central Warehousing Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Ekpal Singh – Respondent
W.P.(C) 14288 of 2004
Decided On : 06-07-2023
Jurisdiction - Industrial Dispute - CWC Regulations - Forged Document - [JURISDICTION] - [INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE] - [CWC Regulations] - [The court held that the Labour Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as the cause of action did not arise in Delhi. However, the court decided the case on its own merits as the petitioner did not raise any prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. The court also found that the respondent's termination was justified due to the submission of a forged educational document.]
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was terminated from his position as a chowkidar by the petitioner corporation due to the submission of a forged educational document. The respondent had worked as a daily wage chowkidar for 7 years and was later offered a regular appointment. However, his documents were found to be forged, leading to his termination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, but decided the case on its own merits. The court held that the respondent's termination was justified due to the submission of a forged educational document.
Issues: Jurisdiction, Termination of Employment, Submission of Forged Document
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Labour Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, but decided the case on its own merits. The court also found that the respondent's termination was justified due to the submission of a forged educational document.
Final Decision: The present Writ Petition is allowed. The Impugned Award is set aside. No order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Gaurang Kanth, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India assailing the Award dated 26.05.2004 (`Impugned Award') passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II, New Delhi (`Labour Court') in I.D. No. 100/1998, titled as `Ekpal Singh v. Management of Central Warehousing Corporations'.
2. Vide the Impugned Award, the learned Labour Court decided the dispute, referred to it by the Central Government, in favour of the Respondent Workman and against the Petitioner Corporation. Learned Labour Court observed that the action of the Management of the Petitioner in terminating the service of the Respondent was not justified and thus, it directed the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent from 20.08.1996 with 10% back wages.
3. During the pendency of the present Writ Petition, the unfortunate demise of Respondent took place on 07.12.2014. Legal heir of the Respondent was substituted in place of deceased Respondent vide order of this Court dated 09.07.2015.
BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF PRESENT WRIT PETITION
4. It is the case of the Respondent that the Petitioner approached certain residents of Workman's Village, namely, Vanthala in 1986 for acquiring their land. It is Respondent's case that the Petitioner offered a very low price for the land so, the villagers negotiated with the Petitioner Corporation for providing employment to at least one member of their families. The Petitioner agreed to this condition and subsequently, respective agreements were entered into between the villagers and the Petitioner. It is the claim of the Respondent that one such agreement dated 10.04.1986 was entered into between the father of Respondent, namely, Sh. Ajab Singh and the Petitioner.
5. It is the further case of the Respondent that pursuant to the agreement, the father of the Respondent wrote a letter dated 19.06.1987 to the Petitioner Corporation requesting them to provide employment to his son, i.e, the Respondent Workman, as agreed between him and the Petitioner Corporation. It is the claim of Respondent that after several repeated requests for employment, the Petitioner finally gave employment to the Respondent as daily wage chowkidar vide its Office Memorandum dated 20.06.1987.
6. It is further the claim of the Respondent that he made several requests to the Petitioner for regularizing his service, however, the Petitioner did not accede to his requests. Consequently, the Respondent raised an industrial dispute in this regard. The term of reference in that dispute was as follows:
"Whether the action of the Management of Central Warehousing Corporation in not regularizing the service of Shri Ekpal Singh s/o Shri Ajab Singh, Daily Rated Watchman on and with effect from 20-6-89 on completion of two years' service in accordance with the terms of appointment order, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
7. Pursuant to raising of the above-mentioned dispute, the Petitioner appointed Respondent on regular post of chowkidar vide Memorandum dated 08.09.1995. It is the case of the Respondent that he is illiterate (now deceased) and he had made this clear to the Petitioner in the very beginning. He got his joining report filled from other persons since he did not know how to write. It is the claim of the Respondent that he was terminated from service on the ground that his Class VIII transfer certificate was found to be false on verification of his documents, however, his case is that he had not filled the form and he should have been given an opportunity of being heard by the Petitioner before terminating him. Thus, he raised an industrial dispute. The Central Government referred the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal vide its order dated 06.04.1998 for adjudication with the following term of reference:
"Whether the action of the management of Central Wareho
The submission of a forged educational document can justify the termination of employment.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the examination of the employer-employee relationship and the maintainability of the application under Section 33(A) of the ID Act.
The court emphasized the importance of proving the existence of an employer-employee relationship and highlighted the limited jurisdiction of the court in examining the award passed by the Industrial....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of the service conditions of employees was within the domain of the contractor, and the absence of evidence showing control ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the contents of documents by primary evidence or secondary evidence under Sections 61 and 65 of the Evidence Act.
Termination without valid reason and entitlement of wages for muster roll employees.
The burden of proof for continuous service of 240 days rests on the workman, and mere self-serving statements are insufficient to establish this claim.
The illegal refusal of employment by the management necessitated compensation for the workman, underscoring the employer's burden to prove any contrary claims.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.