J U D G M E N T

: SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated 10th February, 2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IX in ID No. 09/1997 whereby it was held that the petitioner/claimant is not entitled to any relief.

2. An industrial dispute was referred by the appropriate Government vide letter dated 17th December, 1997 for adjudication to the Industrial Adjudicator with following terms of reference:-

“Whether the services of Sh. Vinod Kumar 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?”

3. Case set up by the petitioner/workman in the statement of claim before the learned Labour Court was that he joined the employment of DDA w.e.f. 1st January, 1985 as a ‘Mate’ on current duty charge. He was a regular and permanent employee of the management/DDA and was drawing salary in proper pay scale with usual allowances admissible under the rules. He had an unblemished record of service to his credit. His services were terminated w.e.f. 30th October, 1991 without assigning any valid reason. The termination is ab initio illegal, bad, unjust and malafide, inter alia, on the ground that the order of termination contained various serious allegations of misconduct but no memo or charge-sheet was ever served upon him and no domestic enquiry was conducted into the matter and he was also not afforded any opportunity of being heard. Moreover, the workman had acquired the status of permanent employee from the initial date of his joining into the employment after completing 240 days of continuous employment. The job against which the workman was working is of regular and permanent nature. Even if the said termination is to be treated as a case of retrenchment, it is illegal because no seniority list was displayed, no notice was served, no notice pay or service compensation was either offered or paid to the workman at the time of termination of his service. The termination is violative of Section 25F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As such, it was prayed that the termination of service of the workman be held illegal and unjustified and he be reinstated in service with continuity of service and full back wages in proper pay scale and allowances with all consequential benefits.

4. The claim of the workman was contested by the management who in its reply before the Court alleged that the workman joined the management as ‘Mate’ on work charge establishment and not on current duty charge w.e.f. 03.01.85 and not 01.01.85 as wrongly alleged in the statement of claim. He was neither a regular nor a permanent employee. Since he was on work charge establishment, his salary was chargeable only to works of division in DDA and his service record was not very satisfactory. He had gained entry into the management fraudulently by forging documents necessary for gaining employment with the management. His services were terminated vide order dated 1.11.1991 after his service record was scrutinized and investigated by DDA and his service book and personal file were taken and seized by CBI. It was discovered that the workman had gained entry by forging documents and vide letter dated 1.11.1991 issued by the Executive Engineer ED-4/DDA, the workman along with two other workmen was directed not to join the duty. When the workman came to know that the fraud committed by him had been discovered, he stopped coming for work. His appointment was temporary. It was not the case of retrenchment. The workman was not eligible for gaining employment with the management. Since he was not eligible, the question of his seniority does not arise and he was also not entitled to any service compensation. There was no violation of any provision of law, as such, the statement of claim deserves to be dismissed.

5. The workman examined himself in order to substantiate his case whereas from the side of the management, t