JUDGMENT

1. The present petitions have been preferred by the parties seeking setting aside of the award dated 05.04.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 01, Dwarka Court Complex, Dwarka, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in ID No. 12/2013. Both the parties concerned, the MCD as well as the claimant, have approached this Court vide the present petitions. While the claimant, Darshan Singh, is seeking setting aside of the award and praying for his reinstatement with back wages, the MCD is seeking setting aside of the order since it has been directed to provide retrenchment compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the claimant. As the parties are common and common submissions have been addressed in both the petitions, the same are taken up and disposed of vide a common judgment. In the impugned award, the Tribunal, while holding the claimant/Darshan Singh’s termination without issuance of notice or conduction of any inquiry to be illegal, has directed the MCD to pay retrenchment compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the claimant, but denied the claimant’s prayer for reinstatement with back wages.

2. Briefly put, in his claim application, Darshan Singh claimed that he was appointed on 07.04.2005 as a Safai Karamchari on a regular basis on compassionate grounds as his mother, who was working with the management as a Safai Karamchari had died while in service. On 10.07.2008, he went to Gomukh for taking “Kanwar” and could not return home. His wife lodged a missing person report on 02.09.2008. He returned home in the first week of May 2011, remained under depression, and was diagnosed as suffering from anxiety neurosis. The claim application was

duly accompanied by a medical certificate. Apparently, in between, a public interest litigation came to be preferred by one Jagrook Welfare Society (Regd.), raising the issue that the management had paid salaries to 2000 persons who were never in employment of the MCD. The said writ petition, Jagrook Welfare Society (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., (1 W.P.(C) 854/2010), came to be listed on 26.05.2010. The Division Bench of this Court noted that 2503 employees were registered without biometric ID number. A circular dated 24.05.2010 was issued that no salary be paid to anyone whose name does not appear on the bio-metric attendance record. The Court noted that MCD was going to issue show-cause notices to all the 2503 employees to show cause finally, as to whether their names figure on the bio-metric attendance system or not and if not, proceedings would be initiated for termination of their services.

3. Insofar as the claimant/Darshan Singh is concerned, his termination was recommended on 04.01.2012 and termination order was passed on 05.01.2012 by noting that he had remained absent from his duties from 08.07.2008 without any prior information/permission of the competent authority. On account of claimant’s non-joining of his duties, the authority found it not reasonable and practical to give any further opportunity of being heard to the claimant and terminated his services as provided under Section 95(2)(b) of the DMC Act.

4. Learned counsel for the management/MCD contended that the learned Tribunal erred in directing payment of retrenchment compensation as it failed to consider that the workmen had remained absent without

notice/permission for a period of three years and as such was not required to be given show cause notice and an opportunity of being heard.

5. It is further submitted that an appointment on compassionate grounds has its own limitations as it is an exception to the mode of regular appointment. The contractual appointment came to be an end. When a workman’s engagement is on daily wages, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. If a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent merely on the s