Moh. Shakeel Akhtar Petitioner v. Mcd

Suresh Kait, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner seeks direction for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2009 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator in ID No. 229/1995.

2. Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that terms of reference vide notification No. F-24(3427)/94.Lab.31160-65 dated 28.09.95 was as under:-

“Whether the services of Sh. Mohd. Shakeel Akhtar have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

3. Accordingly, learned Presiding Officer framed the issues as under:-

“(i) Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably?

(ii) Relief.”

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the issue before the Tribunal was whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the management, however, not decided the same.

5. On perusal of impugned order, the learned Tribunal while taking the shelter of the cases of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported as (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Ajay Kumar Sharma v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court reported as 133 (2006) DLT 24, the learned Tribunal has recorded that the services of the petitioner were not terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management. Accordingly, the issue noted above decided against the petitioner and in favour of the management.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1 Panipat (Haryana) decided on 09.04.2010 by the Apex Court herein held as under:-

“19. The judgment of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) and other decisions in which this Court considered the right of casual, daily wage, temporary and ad hoc employees to be regularised/continued in service or paid salary in the regular time scale, appears to have unduly influenced the High Court's approach in dealing with the appellant's challenge to the award of the Labour Court. In our view, none of those judgments has any bearing on the interpretation of Section 25F of the Act and employer's obligation to comply with the conditions enumerated in that section.”

7. Keeping in view the issues before the Labour Court and the settled position of law, I am of the considered opinion that case of Uma Devi (supra) is applicable on employees under the government employment and not to the workmen which has to be dealt under the Industrial Disputes Act.

8. Accordingly, award dated 19.01.2009 is hereby set aside.

9. The matter is remanded to the concerned Industrial Tribunal to decide afresh by giving opportunities to both parties.

10. Accordingly, parties are directed to appear before the concerned learned Industrial Tribunal on 24th of September, 2014 for direction.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Tribunal.

12. The petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.