JUDGEMENT

1. The present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, praying for the following reliefs:

“(a) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside the Award dated 02.04.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XVII, Karkardooma Courts at New Delhi in I.D. No 99/07; and (b) Direct the Respondent/Management to reinstate the Petitioner/Workman with, continuity of service and with all consequential benefits both monetary and non-monetary;

and (d) Pass such further order(s) and/or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

Page 2 of 16 FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The instant petition has been filed against the Award dated 2nd April, 2016 passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court-XVII Karkardooma Courts at Delhi in ID No. 99/07, by which the relief claimed by the petitioner/workman was rejected. The necessary facts to adjudicate the present petition are as follow:

I.

The petitioner was employed with the erstwhile Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertakings (now known as Delhi Jal Board i.e., respondent) from the year 1994 till June

2002. II.

The petitioner was on the working with the respondent as a „sewer beldar‟. It has been alleged that the petitioner‟s appointment was on a regular basis, however, he was treated as a muster roll worker and paid wages as fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1948”).

III.

Thereafter, in the year 2002, the petitioner‟s services were terminated by the respondent.

IV.

Subsequently, vide order bearing No.

F-24(1110)/ 06/Lab./5304-08 dated 26th June, 2007 the Government of Delhi (GNCTD) issued a reference and sent the same to the Labour Court with the following terms:

“Whether services of Sh. Ranjeet S/o Sh. Anand, Sewar Beldar came to an end on the completion of job for which he was engaged or whether services of said Sh. Ranjeet have been terminated illegally and, or unjustifiably by the Page 3 of 16 management, and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with other consequential benefits in terms of existing Laws/Govt. notifications and to what other relief is he entitled an what directions are necessary in this respect?”

V.

Further, after considering the claim of the petitioner and written statement filed by the Management, the Labour Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether services of the claimant came to an end on completion of the job for which he was engaged? (ii) Whether his services were terminated illegally? VI.

In order to prove his case, the claimant tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A and deposed all the facts stated in the statement of claim. He also relied on certain documents, i.e., demand notice, muster roll, etc. VII.

Thereafter, the Management examined its Assistant Director, (P&M) Mr.K.K.Sharma (MW1) who deposed in terms of the contentions made in the written statement.

VIII.

After considering the documents/material on the records, depositions of the witnesses, contentions made by both the parties and relying upon the several judicial pronouncements, the learned Labour Court, vide the impugned award dated 2nd April, 2016, decided the issues flagged above in favour of the Management and against the workman.

Page 4 of 16 IX.

Aggrieved by the award dated 2nd April, 2016, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

SUBMISSIONS On behalf of petitioner:

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned award dated 2ndApril, 2016, passed by the learned Labour Court in I.D. No. 99/07 is not only perverse but also arbitrary and, therefore, is liable to be set-aside. Additionally, the learned Labour Court has not decided the matter in its correct perspective, rather the matter has been decided solely on the basis of surmises and