*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 4508/2012 & CM Nos. 9342-43/2012

BHIM SAIN

..... Petitioner

Represented by: Petitioner in person

versus

THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

(LABOUR) AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Represented by: Mr.Rajiv,

Advocate

with

Mr.M.K.Vikkey, Advocate for the

respondent Nos. 1 and 2

Mr. S.K.Chaturvedi, Advocate for

respondent No. 3

Mr.Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate

for R-4

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO

V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. The challenge by the petitioner Bhim Sain is to the Award dated

December 10, 2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma

Courts, Delhi in I.D No.112/07 whereby the Industrial Tribunal on a

finding that the petitioner is not a “workman” within the definition of

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to

as the Act) had not granted any relief to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner initially was appointed as a Junior Clerk with the

erstwhile D.E.S.U. He was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk with

effect from June 14, 1989. He was selected and appointed as Legal

2014:DHC:1017

Assistant, a Group-B post on deputation in the Legal Cell. He was

permanently absorbed as Legal Assistant vide office order dated January

13, 1995 in the erstwhile D.E.S.U. A charge-sheet was issued to the

petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The petitioner

was found guilty of the charges framed against him and a punishment of

compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner. It was the case

of the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal that the inquiry was

conducted in an unfair, corrupt and illegal manner. The petitioner had

sought a declaration that the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed

upon him be declared as unauthorized and sought a further direction

against the respondent for compensation.

3. At the time of raising the industrial dispute, since the erstwhile

D.E.S.U was privatized, the two respondents who were successor of the

D.E.S.U/D.V.B were made parties in the industrial dispute before the

Industrial Tribunal.

4. It was the case of the respondent No.1 (Delhi Power Company

Ltd.) that the Legal Assistant, the post on which the petitioner was

working, is the power of attorney holder given by the department. Being

a Power of Attorney Holder the officer has a duty and responsibility to

protect the interest of department by properly prosecuting the cases in

Court. It is further stated that the petitioner had not taken prompt action

in forwarding the comments received by the Law Department on

December 13, 1996 from the Executive Engineer and on May 14, 1997

from the Commercial Officer (Bulk Supply) II to the concerned

department. It is a case where the petitioner had shirked his

2014:DHC:1017

responsibility by claiming absence of his immediate superior although

the petitioner himself filed documents to show that he was Assistant

Legal Officer (ALO). The respondent has also stated that the petitioner

being a holder of the post of Legal Assistant in D.V.B, his duties are

supervisory in nature. On the aspect of disciplinary proceedings suffice

would it be to say that the respondent was justified in imposing the

punishment.

5.

The Delhi Transco Ltd. has also filed a reply before the Industrial

Tribunal wherein it has also stated that the post of Legal Assistant in

DVB was a supervisory post and the petitioner could not have

approached the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act.

6. Three issues were framed by the Industrial Tribunal, which are as

under:

7. On the issue No.1 the Tribunal has by relying upon the judgment

of the Supreme Court in Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P) Ltd. vs. Swayam

Prakash Srivastava & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 491 has held that the petitioner

does not fall within the definition of workman as defined under Section

2(s) of the Act.

2014:DHC:1017

8