Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5498/2010
th
% Reserved on: 13 September, 2012
th
Decided on: 6 December, 2012
NAND LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Adv.
versus
BAKSHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Malhotra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the award
th
dated 30 January, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour
Court in an industrial dispute ID No. 156/2003 whereby the learned Labour
Court held that the workman has failed to prove his case and refused to grant
him any relief.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the learned labour
court has failed to appreciate that the services of the workman were
terminated and that he did not leave his services of his own free will. The
Petitioner who had a permanent job and was employed for over four years
would not whimsically tender his resignation and thereafter within a month
issue a demand notice to the management seeking reinstatement. The
learned Presiding officer erred in relying upon the testimony of Kamal Kant
Khandelwal (MW3) despite the fact that he has not demonstrated his
expertise in handwriting and also in his cross-examination admitted that he
cannot not say whether any other person can write such type of
handwriting/signature. Further the Petitioner is illiterate and can sign in
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 1 of 8
Hindi and used to sign the „paid wages register‟ once in a month. Learned
counsel contends that if any doubt exists in an industrial adjudication its
benefit must be given to the weaker party, that is, the workman. Reliance is
placed on KCP Employees Association, Madras vs. The Management of KCP
Ltd. and others, AIR 1978 SC 474 in support of this contention. On one hand
the Respondent contends that there was no question of payment of any
retrenchment compensation as the Petitioner had left his job on his own and
on the other hand the records of Respondent indicate a full and final
settlement which reflects the payment of Rs. 3,000/- as service
compensation. The alleged payment of Rs. 6,000/- has been made in cash
and no document or ledger entries were produced to indicate the withdrawal
of said amount from the bank for the purpose of such payment. It is lastly
contended that the workman never sought correction/corrigendum in the
reference from the appropriate government before the labour court that he
was a permanent employee of Respondent No. 1 from 1999 till his
th
termination on 19 March, 2002. Further, the written statement of
Respondents has submitted that the business of Bakshi Transport Service
st
was amalgamated after 31 March, 2002 into Bakshi Transport Services Pvt.
Ltd. Hence, it is impleaded as necessary party in the present petition which
the High Court can do suo moto or on an application of a party to writ or at
the instance of a proper party. Reliance is placed on Uday vs. Board of
Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786 and Razia Begum vs. Anwar Begum, AIR 1958
nd
SC 886 . The Respondents have also stated that on 2 May, 2007 Petitioner
was asked to join back which the workman refused. This clearly indicates
that the Management of Bakshi Transport Services and Bakshi Transport
Services Pvt. Ltd. are same, otherwise no offer to rejoin could be made by
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 2 of 8
Respondents when according to Respondents the business of Bakshi
st
Transport Service was wound up on 31 March, 2002.
3. Per contra learned counsel for the Respondents contends that the
Petitioner did not implead Sh. G.S. Sawhney, K.S. Sawhney and M/s Bakshi
Transport Service Pvt. Ltd as Respondents before the learned Labour Court
where the reference of the industrial dispute was made only against
Respondent No. 1. Thus, the Petitioner cannot implead them as parties in the
present petition, which would be beyond the term of reference and enlarging
the scope of dispute as per his own whims and fancies. The services of the
Petitioner were never terminated by the Respondents rather the workman
th
himself had worked only upto 28 February, 2002 leaving the employment
of his own accord, stating that he would not serve the management any
longer, his dues and claims were settled and he received earned wages for
February, 2002 besides a sum of Rs. 6,000/- in full and final settlement on
that day. The Petitioner had put his signature on the full and final settlement
th
voucher dated 28 February, 2002 exhibited as Ex. MW1/2. MW1 Sh. K.S.
Sawhney has stated in his evidence by way of affidavit that the said voucher
was signed by workman in his presence. Further, the handwriting expert
MW3 Kamal Kant Khandelwal has also deposed before the Labour Court
that he has examined the disputed signature Mark „Q‟ with comparative
signature of workman mark „A1‟ to „A5‟. Learned counsel further contends
that although the workman/Petitioner has challenged the opinion of MW3
stating that he had not demonstrated his expertise in hand writing
comparison, however, the authorized representative of the workman had
during the cross-examination of MW1 given a suggestion that the said
signature could have been got done by the workman prior to February, 2002
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 3 of 8
thereby building up a new case altogether. Further, no averments were made
in the rejoinder that the documents of the Respondents are forged and
fabricated. The allegations of the workman that he was deprived of his
livelihood and entitled for reinstatement are untenable under the light of his
cross-examination where the workman has stated he has been working as a
driver for last 26 years and that he started working as a driver since 1981.
The Petitioner also refused to join the services before the learned labour
nd
court and the said refusal finds mentioned in the proceeding dated 2 May,
2007. The learned counsel lastly contends that Respondent No. 1 have not
st
been running any industry subsequent to 31 March, 2002. It had sold its
assets to a private limited company Respondent No. 3 on that day. Hence,
st
no claim of the Petitioner can be raised/maintained after 31 March, 2002.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. Briefly the case of the workman/petitioner is that he was engaged as a
driver with the Respondent No. 1 in May, 1999 at a last drawn salary of Rs.
2,860/- p.m. He was not being paid overtime, compensation for leave
encashment and other benefits. When the same were demanded from the
th
management, the respondents got annoyed. On 19 March, 2002 the
Respondent No. 1 refused permission to the workman to enter the premises
and his services were orally terminated. The workman thereafter got issued
nd
a demand notice dated 22 April, 2002 to the management asking it to allow
him to join his duties with immediate effect and to reinstate him with
continuity of service and full back wages. Finally an industrial dispute was
referred for adjudication on the following terms of reference:
“Whether Sh. Nandlal S/o Sh. Prag Sing has left the services
after receiving full and final settlement and/or his services have
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 4 of 8
been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management and if so what relief he is entitled and what
directions are necessary in the respect?”
6. The Petitioner/workman has in his evidence by way of an affidavit
before the learned Labour Court stated that he was employed with
Respondent No. 1 as a driver in May, 1999 and his last drawn salary was Rs.
th
2,860/- p.m. His services were orally terminated on 19 March, 2002. No
notice of termination was served, no salary for March, 2002 was paid and no
reason was given for his termination. He got served a demand notice dated
nd
22 April, 2002 however, the said notice was returned undelivered. In
cross-examination he denied that he had worked with the Respondent upto
th
28 February, 2002. He also denied having put his signature on voucher
marked „A‟ at point „X‟. Although, the workman admitted receiving salary
for February, 2002 however, denied a payment of Rs. 6,000/- at that time
vide the voucher mark „A‟ and that he had received all his dues and claims in
th
full and final on 28 February, 2002. The Petitioner has also admitted in his
cross-examination that the signatures at point „X1‟ to X5‟ on statement of
claim and authority letter existing on record of the court file were his and
also that in none of his documents including demand notice, claim and
affidavit the name of the person who terminated his services was mentioned.
7. Management has produced three witnesses, that is, Shri K.S. Sawhney
MW1, Shri Vivek Kumar, MW2 and Shri Kamal Kant Khandelwal MW3
before the learned Labour Court. MW1 has in his evidence by way of an
st
affidavit stated that the Petitioner joined Respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 1 October,
1999 and his last drawn wages were Rs. 3,000/- p.m. Workman approached
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 5 of 8
th
the management on 28 February, 2002 and stated that he would not serve
the transport anymore and his oral request was accepted by the management.
On the same day all his dues and claims were settled and he received his
earned wages for February, 2002 and in addition thereto a sum of Rs. 6,000/-
was also received by the claimant as full and final settlement of all his
claims/dues. He has further stated that no relationship of master and servant
th
existed between the workman and Respondent No. 1 after 28 February,
2002. Further the workman on that date had received the salary for the
month of February, 2002 and the wage register (Ex. MW1/1) was signed in
his presence. The workman had also received a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as full
and final settlement by way of a voucher Ex. MW1/2 which too was signed
in his presence. The said amount of Rs. 6,000/- figures in ledger account of
Respondent No. 1 exhibited as Ex. MW1/2A and Ex. MW1/2B. MW1 has
nd
in his cross-examination denied that the demand notice dated 22 April,
2002 was served on the management. He further stated that no termination
th
order exists as the workman left his job on 28 February, 2002 much prior to
th
his alleged termination on 19 March, 2002 after receiving all his claims and
dues hence there was no occasion for the management to terminate his
services.
8. MW3 Shri Kamal Kant Khandelwal, Handwriting and Fingerprint
expert has in his examination stated that he has examined the disputed
signature Mark „Q‟ alleged to be of Shri Nandlal, Petitioner and compared it
with comparative signatures mark A1 to A5 and has also exhibited his report
as Ex. MW3/7. He has also exhibited the photo enlargement of the signature
as Exs. MW3/1 to MW3/5 and their photo negatives collectively as Ex.
MW3/6. In his cross-examination he has stated that he has not placed on
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 6 of 8
record any certificate of his training or any proof to the fact that he had
examined more than 3500 cases.
9. It is the settled principle of law that the onus to prove existence of a
fact lies on the party who contends that it exists. In the present case the
workman contends that his services were terminated by the management on
the other hand the management contends that the workman left his job on
th
28 February, 2002 of his own accord after receiving full and final
settlement. The only evidence produced by the workman before the labour
court is his evidence by way of an affidavit and documents exhibited as Ex.
WW1/1 to WW1/6, that is, demand notice, postal receipt, undelivered AD,
statement of claims filed before the conciliation officer and two provident
fund receipts. However, the management has produced three witnesses,
MW1 to MW3 and their respective exhibits. The management has lastly
relied upon full and final settlement voucher, Ex. MW1/2, examination
report of MW3, Ex. MW3/7, the photo enlargement of the signature as
exhibits Ex. MW3/1 to MW3/5 and their photo negatives collectively
exhibited as MW3/6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the
credentials of MW3 on the ground that he has not placed on record any proof
to show that he had examined more than 3500 cases and any certificate of his
training. Hence the reliance cannot be placed on Ex.MW3/7 to state that the
signatures on the settlement voucher were that of the workman when the
workman has not admitted the same. To my mind mere non-production of
the certificate of training would not be sufficient to discredit the opinion of
handwriting expert when the opinion is corroborated by reasoning in support
of such an opinion. Present is not a case where the opinion of the expert is
given in the absence of reasoning by him. A perusal of Ex. MW3/7 shows
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 7 of 8
that MW3 has given reasons in support of the particular opinion expressed
by him. The opinions so expressed are always open to scrutiny by a court of
law and their soundness can be tested by examining the disputed and the
admitted writing in the light of the reasons given. The object of the expert
evidence is to assist the court in forming its own opinion. The workman has
availed the opportunity of cross-examining MW3 however, he has failed to
bring anything on record to discredit his opinion. MW1 has also in his
evidence by way of an affidavit stated that the said workman signed the full
and final settlement voucher in his presence and he was not cross-examined
on this point. The workman has failed to show that his services were
terminated by the management. On the other hand the testimony of MW1 is
cogent and convincing backed by material evidence.
10. Learned counsel has further contended that the management has not
produced ledger entries to indicate the withdrawal of Rs. 6,000/-. However,
a perusal of exhibits Ex. MW1/2A and Ex. MW1/2B shows the withdrawal
of the full and final settlement amount from the account of respondent no.1.
nd
A perusal of the order sheet dated 2 May, 2007 shows that the workman
was given an opportunity to rejoin on his duties which he had denied.
11. In the light of the above discussion I find no infirmity in the impugned
award. The present writ is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 06, 2012
‘vn’
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 8 of 8
+ W.P.(C) 5498/2010
th
% Reserved on: 13 September, 2012
th
Decided on: 6 December, 2012
NAND LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Adv.
versus
BAKSHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Malhotra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the award
th
dated 30 January, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour
Court in an industrial dispute ID No. 156/2003 whereby the learned Labour
Court held that the workman has failed to prove his case and refused to grant
him any relief.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the learned labour
court has failed to appreciate that the services of the workman were
terminated and that he did not leave his services of his own free will. The
Petitioner who had a permanent job and was employed for over four years
would not whimsically tender his resignation and thereafter within a month
issue a demand notice to the management seeking reinstatement. The
learned Presiding officer erred in relying upon the testimony of Kamal Kant
Khandelwal (MW3) despite the fact that he has not demonstrated his
expertise in handwriting and also in his cross-examination admitted that he
cannot not say whether any other person can write such type of
handwriting/signature. Further the Petitioner is illiterate and can sign in
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 1 of 8
Hindi and used to sign the „paid wages register‟ once in a month. Learned
counsel contends that if any doubt exists in an industrial adjudication its
benefit must be given to the weaker party, that is, the workman. Reliance is
placed on KCP Employees Association, Madras vs. The Management of KCP
Ltd. and others, AIR 1978 SC 474 in support of this contention. On one hand
the Respondent contends that there was no question of payment of any
retrenchment compensation as the Petitioner had left his job on his own and
on the other hand the records of Respondent indicate a full and final
settlement which reflects the payment of Rs. 3,000/- as service
compensation. The alleged payment of Rs. 6,000/- has been made in cash
and no document or ledger entries were produced to indicate the withdrawal
of said amount from the bank for the purpose of such payment. It is lastly
contended that the workman never sought correction/corrigendum in the
reference from the appropriate government before the labour court that he
was a permanent employee of Respondent No. 1 from 1999 till his
th
termination on 19 March, 2002. Further, the written statement of
Respondents has submitted that the business of Bakshi Transport Service
st
was amalgamated after 31 March, 2002 into Bakshi Transport Services Pvt.
Ltd. Hence, it is impleaded as necessary party in the present petition which
the High Court can do suo moto or on an application of a party to writ or at
the instance of a proper party. Reliance is placed on Uday vs. Board of
Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786 and Razia Begum vs. Anwar Begum, AIR 1958
nd
SC 886 . The Respondents have also stated that on 2 May, 2007 Petitioner
was asked to join back which the workman refused. This clearly indicates
that the Management of Bakshi Transport Services and Bakshi Transport
Services Pvt. Ltd. are same, otherwise no offer to rejoin could be made by
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 2 of 8
Respondents when according to Respondents the business of Bakshi
st
Transport Service was wound up on 31 March, 2002.
3. Per contra learned counsel for the Respondents contends that the
Petitioner did not implead Sh. G.S. Sawhney, K.S. Sawhney and M/s Bakshi
Transport Service Pvt. Ltd as Respondents before the learned Labour Court
where the reference of the industrial dispute was made only against
Respondent No. 1. Thus, the Petitioner cannot implead them as parties in the
present petition, which would be beyond the term of reference and enlarging
the scope of dispute as per his own whims and fancies. The services of the
Petitioner were never terminated by the Respondents rather the workman
th
himself had worked only upto 28 February, 2002 leaving the employment
of his own accord, stating that he would not serve the management any
longer, his dues and claims were settled and he received earned wages for
February, 2002 besides a sum of Rs. 6,000/- in full and final settlement on
that day. The Petitioner had put his signature on the full and final settlement
th
voucher dated 28 February, 2002 exhibited as Ex. MW1/2. MW1 Sh. K.S.
Sawhney has stated in his evidence by way of affidavit that the said voucher
was signed by workman in his presence. Further, the handwriting expert
MW3 Kamal Kant Khandelwal has also deposed before the Labour Court
that he has examined the disputed signature Mark „Q‟ with comparative
signature of workman mark „A1‟ to „A5‟. Learned counsel further contends
that although the workman/Petitioner has challenged the opinion of MW3
stating that he had not demonstrated his expertise in hand writing
comparison, however, the authorized representative of the workman had
during the cross-examination of MW1 given a suggestion that the said
signature could have been got done by the workman prior to February, 2002
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 3 of 8
thereby building up a new case altogether. Further, no averments were made
in the rejoinder that the documents of the Respondents are forged and
fabricated. The allegations of the workman that he was deprived of his
livelihood and entitled for reinstatement are untenable under the light of his
cross-examination where the workman has stated he has been working as a
driver for last 26 years and that he started working as a driver since 1981.
The Petitioner also refused to join the services before the learned labour
nd
court and the said refusal finds mentioned in the proceeding dated 2 May,
2007. The learned counsel lastly contends that Respondent No. 1 have not
st
been running any industry subsequent to 31 March, 2002. It had sold its
assets to a private limited company Respondent No. 3 on that day. Hence,
st
no claim of the Petitioner can be raised/maintained after 31 March, 2002.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. Briefly the case of the workman/petitioner is that he was engaged as a
driver with the Respondent No. 1 in May, 1999 at a last drawn salary of Rs.
2,860/- p.m. He was not being paid overtime, compensation for leave
encashment and other benefits. When the same were demanded from the
th
management, the respondents got annoyed. On 19 March, 2002 the
Respondent No. 1 refused permission to the workman to enter the premises
and his services were orally terminated. The workman thereafter got issued
nd
a demand notice dated 22 April, 2002 to the management asking it to allow
him to join his duties with immediate effect and to reinstate him with
continuity of service and full back wages. Finally an industrial dispute was
referred for adjudication on the following terms of reference:
“Whether Sh. Nandlal S/o Sh. Prag Sing has left the services
after receiving full and final settlement and/or his services have
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 4 of 8
been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management and if so what relief he is entitled and what
directions are necessary in the respect?”
6. The Petitioner/workman has in his evidence by way of an affidavit
before the learned Labour Court stated that he was employed with
Respondent No. 1 as a driver in May, 1999 and his last drawn salary was Rs.
th
2,860/- p.m. His services were orally terminated on 19 March, 2002. No
notice of termination was served, no salary for March, 2002 was paid and no
reason was given for his termination. He got served a demand notice dated
nd
22 April, 2002 however, the said notice was returned undelivered. In
cross-examination he denied that he had worked with the Respondent upto
th
28 February, 2002. He also denied having put his signature on voucher
marked „A‟ at point „X‟. Although, the workman admitted receiving salary
for February, 2002 however, denied a payment of Rs. 6,000/- at that time
vide the voucher mark „A‟ and that he had received all his dues and claims in
th
full and final on 28 February, 2002. The Petitioner has also admitted in his
cross-examination that the signatures at point „X1‟ to X5‟ on statement of
claim and authority letter existing on record of the court file were his and
also that in none of his documents including demand notice, claim and
affidavit the name of the person who terminated his services was mentioned.
7. Management has produced three witnesses, that is, Shri K.S. Sawhney
MW1, Shri Vivek Kumar, MW2 and Shri Kamal Kant Khandelwal MW3
before the learned Labour Court. MW1 has in his evidence by way of an
st
affidavit stated that the Petitioner joined Respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 1 October,
1999 and his last drawn wages were Rs. 3,000/- p.m. Workman approached
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 5 of 8
th
the management on 28 February, 2002 and stated that he would not serve
the transport anymore and his oral request was accepted by the management.
On the same day all his dues and claims were settled and he received his
earned wages for February, 2002 and in addition thereto a sum of Rs. 6,000/-
was also received by the claimant as full and final settlement of all his
claims/dues. He has further stated that no relationship of master and servant
th
existed between the workman and Respondent No. 1 after 28 February,
2002. Further the workman on that date had received the salary for the
month of February, 2002 and the wage register (Ex. MW1/1) was signed in
his presence. The workman had also received a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as full
and final settlement by way of a voucher Ex. MW1/2 which too was signed
in his presence. The said amount of Rs. 6,000/- figures in ledger account of
Respondent No. 1 exhibited as Ex. MW1/2A and Ex. MW1/2B. MW1 has
nd
in his cross-examination denied that the demand notice dated 22 April,
2002 was served on the management. He further stated that no termination
th
order exists as the workman left his job on 28 February, 2002 much prior to
th
his alleged termination on 19 March, 2002 after receiving all his claims and
dues hence there was no occasion for the management to terminate his
services.
8. MW3 Shri Kamal Kant Khandelwal, Handwriting and Fingerprint
expert has in his examination stated that he has examined the disputed
signature Mark „Q‟ alleged to be of Shri Nandlal, Petitioner and compared it
with comparative signatures mark A1 to A5 and has also exhibited his report
as Ex. MW3/7. He has also exhibited the photo enlargement of the signature
as Exs. MW3/1 to MW3/5 and their photo negatives collectively as Ex.
MW3/6. In his cross-examination he has stated that he has not placed on
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 6 of 8
record any certificate of his training or any proof to the fact that he had
examined more than 3500 cases.
9. It is the settled principle of law that the onus to prove existence of a
fact lies on the party who contends that it exists. In the present case the
workman contends that his services were terminated by the management on
the other hand the management contends that the workman left his job on
th
28 February, 2002 of his own accord after receiving full and final
settlement. The only evidence produced by the workman before the labour
court is his evidence by way of an affidavit and documents exhibited as Ex.
WW1/1 to WW1/6, that is, demand notice, postal receipt, undelivered AD,
statement of claims filed before the conciliation officer and two provident
fund receipts. However, the management has produced three witnesses,
MW1 to MW3 and their respective exhibits. The management has lastly
relied upon full and final settlement voucher, Ex. MW1/2, examination
report of MW3, Ex. MW3/7, the photo enlargement of the signature as
exhibits Ex. MW3/1 to MW3/5 and their photo negatives collectively
exhibited as MW3/6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the
credentials of MW3 on the ground that he has not placed on record any proof
to show that he had examined more than 3500 cases and any certificate of his
training. Hence the reliance cannot be placed on Ex.MW3/7 to state that the
signatures on the settlement voucher were that of the workman when the
workman has not admitted the same. To my mind mere non-production of
the certificate of training would not be sufficient to discredit the opinion of
handwriting expert when the opinion is corroborated by reasoning in support
of such an opinion. Present is not a case where the opinion of the expert is
given in the absence of reasoning by him. A perusal of Ex. MW3/7 shows
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 7 of 8
that MW3 has given reasons in support of the particular opinion expressed
by him. The opinions so expressed are always open to scrutiny by a court of
law and their soundness can be tested by examining the disputed and the
admitted writing in the light of the reasons given. The object of the expert
evidence is to assist the court in forming its own opinion. The workman has
availed the opportunity of cross-examining MW3 however, he has failed to
bring anything on record to discredit his opinion. MW1 has also in his
evidence by way of an affidavit stated that the said workman signed the full
and final settlement voucher in his presence and he was not cross-examined
on this point. The workman has failed to show that his services were
terminated by the management. On the other hand the testimony of MW1 is
cogent and convincing backed by material evidence.
10. Learned counsel has further contended that the management has not
produced ledger entries to indicate the withdrawal of Rs. 6,000/-. However,
a perusal of exhibits Ex. MW1/2A and Ex. MW1/2B shows the withdrawal
of the full and final settlement amount from the account of respondent no.1.
nd
A perusal of the order sheet dated 2 May, 2007 shows that the workman
was given an opportunity to rejoin on his duties which he had denied.
11. In the light of the above discussion I find no infirmity in the impugned
award. The present writ is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 06, 2012
‘vn’
W.P. (C) NO. 5498 OF 2010 Page 8 of 8