$~6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

RESERVED ON – 07^th July, 2022

%

PRONOUNCED ON - 6^th September, 2022

+

W.P.(C) 4822/2014

THE

MANAGEMENT

OF

GURU

GOBIND

SINGH

INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Ravi Sikri, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri and Mr.

Abhishek, Advs.

versus

LOKESH KUMAR & ANR

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Jawahar Raja, Ms. Meghna

De, Ms. L. Gangmei, Mr Archit

Krishna

and

Ms.

Varsha

Sharma, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,J :

FACTS

1.

Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Award

dated 13.05.2014 in LIR/D No.1009/2011 titled Sh. Lokesh Kumar & Anr.

Vs. Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University, whereby, the learned

Labour Court, inter alia, held the termination to be illegal and ordered that

the respondents/workmen are entitled to reinstatement in service from the

date of their termination, but on daily wage basis as they were at the time of

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003492

their termination, with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

2.

The facts in brief are that the respondents/workmen had filed

statement of claims against the petitioner/management for a direction to the

petitioner/management to reinstate them back in service with full back

wages and continuity in service and other consequential benefits. The

respondents/workmen

had

alleged

that

they

had

joined

the

petitioner/management as Peon-cum-Cleaner with effect from 23.05.2008 in

the Examination Division at Kashmere Gate, Delhi and had a clean service

record. It was alleged that they were initially taken into the job on a sanction

of 89 days and were given fresh sanction after showing one day break on

papers though they remained physically in service continuously. The

services of the respondents/workmen were terminated on 31.10.2010

without assigning any reason. The petitioner/management had neither

issued a memo nor a chargesheet to them before terminating their services.

The respondents/workmen initially sent a demand notice dated 11.02.2011

to

the

petitioner/management

which

remained

unresponded.

The

respondents/workmen pleaded that they remained unemployed since the date

of their termination and that they did not get any job despite best efforts.

3.

The

petitioner/management

contested

the

claim

of

the

respondents/workmen on the ground that the respondents/workmen were

appointed only for a fixed period subject to the condition that their job was

purely temporary and they shall have no right to continue after the stipulated

time and both the workmen agreed to the same. The petitioner/management

pleaded that the respondents/workmen were daily wagers and were

appointed on contract basis.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003492

4.

On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Labour Court

framed the following issues:-

4. Relief”

5.

The respondents/workmen examined themselves as WW1 and WW2.

On behalf of petitioner/management, Sh. Kapil Sharma – Section Officer

was examined as MW1. Learned Labour Court on issue Nos.1 and 2 inter

alia held that the respondents/workmen had continuously worked with the

petitioner/management from 23.05.2008 to 31.10.2010 without any actual

break of 2 days though, on papers, they were shown to have been given a

break of 2 days after every 89 days and separate work orders were issued to

them after every 89 days. It was inter alia held that this practice of issuing

work orders for 89 days would clearly amount to unfair labour practice

when the respondents/workmen had been working continuously till the date

of their actual termination which was done by the management only with the

intent to wriggle out of the rigors of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act (hereinafter

This is a digitally signed Judgemen