LPA No.63/2012 Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment reserved on

:14.01. 2013

Judgment pronounced on:

:21.01.2013

+

LPA 63/2012 and CM No.1722/2012(stay)

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Appellant

Through :

Mr. Rajesh Mahajan with Mr.

Piyush Gaur and Mr. Arun

Bhardwaj , Adv.

versus

DEEPAK WADHWA

.... Respondent

Through :

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. for

Workman.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

V.K. JAIN, J.

1. On 14^th September, 1992, the respondent was appointed as a Beldar

with the appellant on muster roll, for a period of ninety days. Vide

subsequent order dated 18^th September, 1992, he was appointed in the

same capacity, again for a period of ninety days. It was stated in the

order dated 18^th September, 1992 that his appointment will not confer any

right for regular appointment and will automatically come to an end on

the expiry of aforesaid period or could be terminated earlier, at any time,

2013:DHC:320-DB

LPA No.63/2012 Page 2 of 10

without assigning any notice or without reason. Vide order dated 16^th

December, 1992, earlier appointment was extended till 7^th March, 1993

on the existing terms and conditions. Vide order dated 4^th February,

1993, the respondent was appointed as Attorney on a consolidated salary

of Rs.1,784/- per month upto 28^th July, 1993 only for a period of six

months. Vide order dated 2^nd August, 1994, which was the last

appointment order issued to him, the respondent was appointed as

Attorney on contract basis with effect from 6^th June, 1994 on a

consolidated salary of Rs.1,730/- per month and was posted in Law

Department against one of the two posts meant for ST candidates, for a

period of six months or till regular selection of ST category candidate,

whichever was to be earlier. The services of the respondent were

dispensed with vide order dated 8^th August, 1994 with immediate effect,

it would be pertinent to note here that, according to the appellant, in a

meeting held on 20^th July, 1994, the Selection Sub-Committee had

selected two candidates to fill up the two posts meant for ST category

candidates.

2. The respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred to

the Labour Court for adjudication. The plea taken by the appellant before

2013:DHC:320-DB

LPA No.63/2012 Page 3 of 10

the Labour Court was that since a regular ST category candidate had been

selected, it was decided to terminate the services of the respondent in

terms of the appointment letter issued to him on 2^nd August, 1994. The

Labour Court vide order dated 29^th November, 2000 held that dispensing

with the services of the respondent was not justified and ordered his

reinstatement. Being aggrieved from the award of the Labour Court, the

appellant filed a writ petition which came to be dismissed while

impugned judgment dated 19^th December, 2011. Being dissatisfied, the

appellant is before us by way of this appeal.

3. The Labour Court noted that the appellant had produced only six

documents none of which disclosed selection of a ST category candidate

for the post against which the respondent was appointed.

4. The question as to whether a ST candidate had actually been

selected on 20^th July, 1994 as claimed by the appellant or not is purely a

question of fact, which cannot be gone into either in the writ petition was

in the appeal arising out of the order passed in the writ petition. The onus

was upon the appellant to prove, by leading evidence before the Labour

Court that it had actually selected a ST candidate in the m