W.P.(C) 13869/2004

Page 1 of 13

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on : 06.09.2022

Pronounced on: 20.09.2022

+

W.P.(C) 13869/2004

SMT. SANTOSH DEVI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Meghna De, Advocate.

versus

GURU TEG BAHADUR HOSPITAL

SHAHDARA, DELHI

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing

Counsel, GNCTD with Ms.Tania

Ahlawat, Mr. Uday Singh Ahlawat,

Ms. Aliza Alam and Ms. Laavanya

Kaushik, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

J U D G M E N T

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1.

By the present petition, the Petitioner lays a challenge to the award

dated 08.07.2003 passed by the Labour Court-I, Karkardooma, Delhi

in I.D. No. 308/98 titled as “The management of M/s. Guru Teg

Bahadur Hospital Vs. Its workman Smt. Santosh Devi”(“Impugned

Award”). Vide the Impugned Award dated 08.07.2003, the learned

Labour Court was pleased to answer the reference in favour of the

Respondent/Management and against the Petitioner/Workman.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003842

W.P.(C) 13869/2004

Page 2 of 13

2.

It is the case of the Petitioner/Workman that she was engaged by the

Respondent/Management on muster roll as a Safai Karamchari w.e.f

17.12.1988. Thereafter, the service of the Petitioner/Workman was

terminated w.e.f. 17.04.1993 without assigning any valid reason

thereof. After 4 years of the alleged termination, on 31.12.1997, the

Petitioner/Workman through her Union issued a legal demand notice

to the Respondent/Management. Subsequently on 10.06.1998, the

Petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation

Officer.

3.

On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the Government of

National Capital Territory of Delhi vide Notification dated

20.08.1998 referred the dispute to the learned Labour Court for

adjudication under Section 10(I)(C) & 12(5) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “I.D. Act”) with the

following reference:

“Whether the services of Smt. Santosh Devi have been

what directions are necessary in this respect?”

4.

The Petitioner filed Statement of Claim before the learned Labour

Court alleging violation of 25F, G & H of the I.D. Act read with

Rules 76, 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957

(hereinafter referred to as “Rules”).

5.

The Respondent/Management filed their Written Statement before

the learned Labour Court denying that the Petitioner/Workman

worked with them for a period of 240 days in a calendar year. It is

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003842

W.P.(C) 13869/2004

Page 3 of 13

the

case

of

the

Respondent/Management

that

the

Petitioner/Workman worked in 13 different spells on muster roll

w.e.f 01.01.1990 without completing 240 days in a calendar year. It

is the case of the Respondent/Management that since the services of

the Petitioner/Workman was not terminated or retrenched, there is no

violation of 25F, G & H of the I.D. Act.

6.

Both the parties led their evidence to substantiate their respective

cases. The Petitioner examined herself as WW-1. On behalf of the

Respondent/Management, Dr. B.R Chandra, Additional MS, GTB

Hospital was examined as MW-1.

7.

After examining the evidence on behalf of both the parties, the

learned Labour Court was pleased to answer the reference in favour

of the Respondent/Management and against the Petitioner/Workman.

The

learned

Labour

Court

held

that

the

Petitioner/Workman failed to prove that her services were terminated

illegally or unjustifiably or the management acted in violation of

Section 25F, G & H of the I.D. Act read with Rules 76, 77 and 78 of

the and Section 30 of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954.

8.

The present Writ Petition is preferred by the Petitioner challenging

the Impugned Award.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

9.

Ms. Meghna De, learned co