Full Judgment Text
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Judgment delivered on: 25 August, 2014
+ W.P.(C) No.5022/2012
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Standing
Counsel.
Versus
PREM SHANKAR SAXENA ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.P.N.Dwivedi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the
impugned award dated 01.04.2011 passed in ID No.78/2005 (Old ID
No.99/98). Further seeks directions to quash the impugned order dated
07.06.2003, on issue No.5, passed by P.O. IT-III in ID No.99/98. Also
seeks directions to quash the impugned order dated 29.03.2006, whereby
the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to lead
additional evidence was dismissed.
2. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that earlier the learned Labour Court passed the
W.P. (C) 5022/2012 Page 1 of 4
award dated 17.01.2007 against the workman and in favour of the
petitioner. Hence, the respondent workman approached this Court vide
WP(C) No.4113/2008.
3. Further submits, vide order dated 23.03.2010, while deciding the
aforementioned writ petition, this Court remanded back the case to the
learned Labour Court to decide the reference afresh after taking into
consideration the demand notice dated 14.05.1997, which had been
proved on record as Ex. WW1/16.
4. Contention of the petitioner is that thereafter, the learned Labour
Court had to decide the reference afresh after taking into consideration
the aforesaid demand notice in question, as directed by this Court.
5. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned award dated 01.04.2011, the
learned Labour Court recorded as under:-
“5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed by Ld.Predecessor on 18.5.99:-
(1) As per terms of reference.
(2) Whether the claim is barred under section 2(j) and 2(s)
of the I.D. Act as alleged? (OPM)
(3) Whether a proper demand notice has been served? OPW
(4) Whether the claim is not maintainable for the reasons
stated in para 3 of the preliminary objections of WS?
6. On 2.11.99 on the request of workman, following issue
no. 5 was framed:-
“Whether the management has held a legal and valid inquiry,
as per rules of natural justice? OPM”
6. Mr.Bhardwaj, submits that pursuant to directions passed by this
W.P. (C) 5022/2012 Page 2 of 4
Court vide order dated 23.03.2010, the learned Labour Court was
supposed to decide the reference afresh, however, while passing the
impugned award dated 01.04.2011, the learned Labour Court had taken
into considerations the issues, which were framed by its Predecessors on
18.05.1999 and 02.11.1999 respectively.
7. I note, vide order dated 23.03.2010, this Court observed that the
learned Labour Court had ignored the demand notice dated 14.05.1997,
proved on record as Ex.WW1/16, whereby the respondent workman had
raised the demand against his illegal compulsory retirement from service
and accordingly, remanded back the matter to the Labour Court to decide
the reference afresh after taking into consideration the said demand
notice.
8. Perusal of the issues framed on 18.05.1999 reveals that issue No.3
was that “Whether a proper demand notice has been served? OPW”.
9. While adjudicating the reference on demand notice, if the learned
Labour Court has taken into consideration the issues already framed, in
my considered opinion, the issue would have been remained same as
framed vide aforesaid order dated 18.05.1999 because the other issues
were not in dispute except issue No. 3.
10. However, the fact remains that demand notice dated 14.05.1997,
Ex.WW1/16 was already on record and the learned Labour Court had,
inadvertently, ignored the same. Therefore, if the learned Labour Court
came to the conclusion that the issues are to be decided in favour of the
respondent workman and ordered accordingly vide impugned award
dated 01.04.2011, then I find no discrepancy in the aforesaid order.
W.P. (C) 5022/2012 Page 3 of 4
11. Finding no merits in the instant petition, the same is accordingly
dismissed with no order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 25, 2014
sb
W.P. (C) 5022/2012 Page 4 of 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Judgment delivered on: 25 August, 2014
+ W.P.(C) No.5022/2012
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Standing
Counsel.
Versus
PREM SHANKAR SAXENA ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.P.N.Dwivedi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the
impugned award dated 01.04.2011 passed in ID No.78/2005 (Old ID
No.99/98). Further seeks directions to quash the impugned order dated
07.06.2003, on issue No.5, passed by P.O. IT-III in ID No.99/98. Also
seeks directions to quash the impugned order dated 29.03.2006, whereby
the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to lead
additional evidence was dismissed.
2. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that earlier the learned Labour Court passed the
W.P. (C) 5022/2012 Page 1 of 4
award dated 17.01.2007 against the workman and in favour of the
petitioner. Hence, the respondent workman approached this Court vide
WP(C) No.4113/2008.
3. Further submits, vide order dated 23.03.2010, while deciding the
aforementioned writ petition, this Court remanded back the case to the
learned Labour Court to decide the reference afresh after taking into
consideration the demand notice dated 14.05.1997, which had been
proved on record as Ex. WW1/16.
4. Contention of the petitioner is that thereafter, the learned Labour
Court had to decide the reference afresh after taking into consideration
the aforesaid demand notice in question, as directed by this Court.
5. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned award dated 01.04.2011, the
learned Labour Court recorded as under:-
“5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed by Ld.Predecessor on 18.5.99:-
(1) As per terms of reference.
(2) Whether the claim is barred under section 2(j) and 2(s)
of the I.D. Act as alleged? (OPM)
(3) Whether a proper demand notice has been served? OPW
(4) Whether the claim is not maintainable for the reasons
stated in para 3 of the preliminary objections of WS?
6. On 2.11.99 on the request of workman, following issue
no. 5 was framed:-
“Whether the management has held a legal and valid inquiry,
as per rules of natural justice? OPM”
6. Mr.Bhardwaj, submits that pursuant to directions passed by this
W.P. (C) 5022/2012 Page 2 of 4
Court vide order dated 23.03.2010, the learned Labour Court was
supposed to decide the reference afresh, however, while passing the
impugned award dated 01.04.2011, the learned Labour Court had taken
into considerations the issues, which were framed by its Predecessors on
18.05.1999 and 02.11.1999 respectively.
7. I note, vide order dated 23.03.2010, this Court observed that the
learned Labour Court had ignored the demand notice dated 14.05.1997,
proved on record as Ex.WW1/16, whereby the respondent workman had
raised the demand against his illegal compulsory retirement from service
and accordingly, remanded back the matter to the Labour Court to decide
the reference afresh after taking into consideration the said demand
notice.
8. Perusal of the issues framed on 18.05.1999 reveals that issue No.3
was that “Whether a proper demand notice has been served? OPW”.
9. While adjudicating the reference on demand notice, if the learned
Labour Court has taken into consideration the issues already framed, in
my considered opinion, the issue would have been remained same as
framed vide aforesaid order dated 18.05.1999 because the other issues
were not in dispute except issue No. 3.
10. However, the fact remains that demand notice dated 14.05.1997,
Ex.WW1/16 was already on record and the learned Labour Court had,
inadvertently, ignored the same. Therefore, if the learned Labour Court
came to the conclusion that the issues are to be decided in favour of the
respondent workman and ordered accordingly vide impugned award
dated 01.04.2011, then I find no discrepancy in the aforesaid order.
W.P. (C) 5022/2012 Page 3 of 4
11. Finding no merits in the instant petition, the same is accordingly
dismissed with no order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 25, 2014
sb
W.P. (C) 5022/2012 Page 4 of 4