Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:- 31.01.2020
+ W.P.(C) 2147/2007
INDIAN COUNCIL OF WORLD AFFAIRS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Chandrachur Bhattacharyya with
Mr.Manoj Kr Dubey, Advs.
versus
HARJINDER SINGH CHADHA ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Sugandha Anand, Adv along with
respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India filed by the Management assails the award dated
05.05.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi in I.D.No.161/06/96. Under the impugned award, the Labour
Court has, after noting that the respondent/workman had been illegally
terminated by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1995 before being reinstated
in service during the pendency of the industrial dispute, directed the
petitioner to pay him full backwages for the period between
01.04.1995 and 26.09.2001.
2. The brief facts are that the respondent joined at the post of ‘Air
Conditioner Plant Operator’ on an ad-hoc basis in the
petitioner/organisation on 01.04.1986 and was subsequently
confirmed in service on 15.12.1986. Claiming that his services had
been illegally terminated w.e.f. 01.04.1995, the respondent raised an
industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for
W.P.(C) 2147/2007 Page 1 of 7
adjudication.
3. Before the Labour Court, the respondent claimed that despite
his performance at work being to the utmost satisfaction of his
superiors, his demand for overtime wages had antagonised the
Administrative Officer. As a result, on 31.03.1995 when he returned
to work after availing a single day leave, he was not allowed to rejoin
duty by the Administrative Officer. This compelled the respondent to
prefer a complaint not only before the local Police, but also to the
Secretary General/President of the petitioner organisation. He further
claimed that when he contacted the superior officers to discuss this
issue, they advised him to remain on leave till 08.04.1995 so that the
matter could be resolved. The situation, however, did not improve
and, notwithstanding the repeated written requests made by the
respondent or the efforts of the Conciliation Officer, the respondent
was again refused permission to rejoin duty on 08.04.1995 which
compelled him to raise the industrial dispute.
4. In its written statement dated 10.01.1997, the petitioner
opposed the respondent’s claim by contending that he had never been
terminated from service but that, in fact, he had himself failed to
rejoin service after being on leave till 08.04.1995; for this purpose,
reference was made to the respondent’s leave application dated
03.04.1995. The petitioner further urged that it had always been
willing to reinstate the respondent in service, but he had failed to
rejoin duty despite the petitioner’s various letters entreating him to do
so.
5. Even though the petitioner’s written statement was filed on
W.P.(C) 2147/2007 Page 2 of 7
10.01.1997, the respondent’s rejoinder failed to specifically address
the issue of rejoining duty and it was only on 26.09.2001 that the
respondent finally stated his willingness before the Labour Court to
rejoin duty. The record shows that pursuant to the order dated
26.09.2001 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner issued a letter
asking the respondent to rejoin duty which offer was accompanied by
the caveat that the respondent would be kept on probation. The
respondent, however, claims that the petitioner continued to deny him
from rejoining service in September, 2001 and was ultimately
reinstated on 27.01.2004, only pursuant to the Labour Court’s order
dated 24.01.2004.
6. The Labour Court passed the award impugned herein, by
concluding that this was not a case of voluntary abandonment of
service by the respondent. Furthermore, after noticing that the
respondent had been permitted to join back in duty only w.e.f.
26.09.2001, the Labour Court allowed the respondent’s claim for
backwages for the period between 01.04.1995 and 26.09.2001. The
relevant extract of the impugned award reads as under:
“Issue No.1:
During the course of the proceedings both the parties settled
the matter. On 26.09.2001 the management expressed its
willingness that the worker may join them. They also placed on
record a copy of the memo vide which the workman was allowed
to join the duties with the management with effect from
26.09.2001. However, the parties could not compromise the
matter regarding the back wages. Now, the only question which
is to be decided by this Court is regarding the back wages. After
going through the records, I am satisfied that it was not the case
of abandonment of services by the workman and now the
W.P.(C) 2147/2007 Page 3 of 7
workman has already joined back the management with effect
from 26.09.2001. The court is left with the question if he is
entitled for grant of back wages and if so at what rate from
01.04.1995, the date of his termination till 26.09.2001, the date
he joined back the management. The workman has affirmed on
oath in his affidavit that he is unemployed and has not been able
to get any alternative employment, on which there is no cross
examination by the management from which it is clear that the
plea of unemployment of the workman stands unrebutted and
uncontroverted. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that he is
entitled for full back wages along with consequential relief for
the period from 01.04.1995 till 26.09.2001. Issue is accordingly
decided in favour of the workman and against the management.”
7. Assailing the said award, the present writ petition has been filed
by the Management/ Indian Council of World Affairs .
8. It is pertinent to note that the present writ petition has been
pending before this Court since February, 2007 during which period,
the respondent had superannuated. On 05.09.2019, this Court after
considering the fact that the respondent had not responded to the
petitioner’s specific offer to reinstate him in service, had set aside the
direction for payment of backwages, as made in the impugned award,
for the period between 01.02.1997 and 26.09.2001.
9. Today, therefore, the only question which survives for
adjudication is regarding the payment of backwages for the period
between 01.04.1995 and 31.01.1997.
10. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.Chandrachur Bhattacharyya, Advocate reiterates the petitioner’s
submissions made before the Labour Court and contends that the
Labour Court’s decision to award backwages to the respondent w.e.f.
31.03.1995 was based on a mere bald statement made by him that he
W.P.(C) 2147/2007 Page 4 of 7
had been prevented from joining duty w.e.f. 31.03.1995. This is
completely contrary to the respondent’s own application dated
03.04.1995 seeking leave from work till 08.04.1995 and reveals the
falsity of the respondent’s allegation of being prevented from
rejoining duty during that period; this aspect was completely
overlooked by the Labour Court. He, therefore, prays that the
direction for payment of full backwages, as made in the impugned
award, for the period between 01.04.1995 and 31.01.1997 be set aside
as well.
11. On the other hand, Ms.Sugandha Anand, learned counsel for
the respondent while supporting the impugned award submits that the
petitioner’s plea that it had never prevented the respondent from
rejoining duty was contrary to the record and was, therefore, rightly
rejected by the Labour Court. By drawing my attention to the various
letters addressed by the respondent to the petitioner seeking
permission to rejoin duty, she contends that the petitioner has always
falsely denied the respondent’s illegal termination from service. She
thus contends that the Labour Court was fully justified in rejecting the
petitioner’s stand that the respondent had voluntarily abandoned
service. She further submits that the respondent, who superannuated
in the year 2014, has been suffering the pendency of the present
petition for the last many years owing to the false stands taken by the
petitioner which has led to him being denied even his terminal
benefits. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.
12. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and with their assistance perused the record.
W.P.(C) 2147/2007 Page 5 of 7
13. As noted above, the only question which now survives for
adjudication is regarding the backwages payable for the period
between 01.04.1995 to 31.01.1997. While the admitted position is that
the respondent did not discharge any duties during the period in
question, the only point of dispute is regarding the party responsible
for his absence from duty.
14. On this issue, the petitioner has vehemently urged that it was
the respondent who voluntarily abandoned service, while the
respondent has urged that he was not permitted rejoin duty, despite
his repeated requests, owing to the vindictive attitude of the
Administrative Officer. The Labour Court, after appreciating the
evidence on record and more specifically the oral testimony of the
witnesses including that of the respondent, opined that it was not a
case of voluntary abandonment of service by the respondent. While
arriving at this conclusion, the Labour Court specifically noted the
respondent’s averment that he was neither permitted to punch-in his
card on reaching work nor was he allowed to enter the petitioner’s
premises. Even before this Court, during the course of arguments, my
attention was drawn to the statement and cross examination of the
witnesses before the Labour Court. On a perusal of these statements, I
find that the Labour Court was correct in holding that it was not a
case of voluntary abandonment of service. Since the findings of the
Labour Court are based on a correct appreciation of the evidence on
record, I find no perversity or illegality therein. In these
circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the same in exercise
of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
W.P.(C) 2147/2007 Page 6 of 7
Constitution of India.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by upholding the
direction for payment of backwages to the respondent for the period
between 01.04.1995 and 31.01.1997.
16. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
observations on the grievances raised by the respondent relating to the
non-payment of his retiral dues and has examined only the validity of
the findings in the impugned award.
REKHA PALLI, J
JANUARY 31, 2020/sr
W.P.(C) 2147/2007 Page 7 of 7