Honble Shri V.N.Gaur, Member (A) The applicant has filed this OA with a prayer to quash the suspension order dated 29.05.2007 and to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.
2. In brief, the undisputed facts are - The applicant joined as Beldar in MCD (CSE) on 15.11.1989. His services were terminated on 27.01.1990 against which he went to the Industrial Tribunal, culminating into an Award dated 03.08.1995. The applicant was awarded the relief of reinstatement with full back wages in the minimum pay scale of Rs.750-940 with all the allowances admissible w.e.f. 21.07.1990 till the date of his reinstatement. The applicant recovered wages amounting to Rs.1,11,712/- for the period starting from 21.07.1990 to 31.10.1995. The MCD challenged this Award in the Honble Delhi High Court in WP(C) 547/1997. Vide its order dated 11.02.1997 Honble Delhi High Court stayed the operation of the Award dated 03.08.1995. The applicant raised another industrial dispute seeking regularization of his services wherein an Award dated 01.09.2003 held that the applicant was entitled to be regularized in service w.e.f. 01.04.1994. The order reads as follows: 25. In case the workmen are not treated to be in continuous service by the Honble High Court in the writ petition, filed by the management then the workmen will be entitled to regularization only after taking into consideration the actual period of service rendered by them and then seniority has to be fixed, accordingly. Reference is answered, accordingly. Award is passed, accordingly.
3. The applicant claims to be in continuous employment w.e.f. 15.11.1989 in terms of the Award dated 03.08.1995 and a regular employee in term of the award 01.09.2003. The applicant is aggrieved by the suspension order issued by the MCD vide order dated 29.05.2007 whereby the applicant and one Shri Devender Dahiya, Beldar, SLF (Bhalswa) were also placed under suspension. Respondents have issued charge sheet on 18.02.2010 and directed the applicant to file the reply. Applicant has not been getting any subsistence allowance. On the other hand, vide order dated 17.02.2009 Sh. Devender Dahiya, Beldar has been reinstated by MCD whereas the applicant has been denied similar treatment.
4. Ms.Neelam Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant submitted that the respondents have treated the applicant unfairly and in a discriminatory manner as another person, Sh.Devender Dahiya, who was suspended along with the applicant by the same order was reinstated on 17.02.2009, while the applicant continues to be under suspension. It was also stated that the respondents have taken nearly 3 years to serve him the charge sheet vide order dated 18.02.2010. Despite the applicant having submitted his reply, the respondents have not taken any action to proceed with his case and continue to keep him under suspension without even subsistence allowance. Under these circumstances there was no ground for the respondents to continue the suspension of the applicant and the same may be quashed by this Tribunal. Learned counsel also informed that by the order dated 07.12.2012, Honble High Court of Delhi has dismissed WP (C) no.547/1997 as the respondents-workers had already been reinstated and back wages paid.
5. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, raised the issue of limitation that the applicant was questioning the suspension order passed in 2007 and charge sheet issued in the year 2010. Applicant has neither moved any application for condonation of delay nor made any submission to justify the delay. Learned counsel argued that application was liable to be rejected on this ground alone, relying on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Settlement and ors. vs. D.Ram Prakash, 2002 (2) RSJ 582, wherein it has been held that the Tribunal should not have entertained the Application ignoring the period of limitation and held that Tribunal ought to have rejected the Application of the Applicant on the grounds as provided under Section 21 of the Act.. The learned counsel also relied on Ramesh Chand Sharma vs. Udham Singh Kamal, (1999) 8 SCC 304.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was a daily wager and not a regular employee of MCD and thereafter not entitled to suspension allowance. As regards the case of Sh. Devender Dahiya the applicant cannot claim parity with him as he was reinstated for a different reasoning. The applicant never submitted any representation against the suspension order of 2007 and as such applicant can not approach this Tribunal directly. Learned counsel, however, could not explain the reason for placing a daily wager, as claimed by them, under suspension, delay in issuing a charge sheet and subsequently follow up action.
7. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. With regard to the limitation, the applicant in para 3 of the OA has declared that he was within the limitation period as prescribed under Section 21 of the AT Act, 1985. However, the prayer in the OA is to set aside the order of suspension passed 5 years back on 07.09.2007. Applicant has neither moved any application for condonation of delay nor made any submission explaining the reasons for such delay by filing the application during the oral submissions. We, therefore, agree with the learned counsel for respondents that the application is badly barred by limitation and cannot be entertained by this Tribunal. In this regard, we rely on the observations of Honble Supreme Court in Director of Settlement and others (supra) and Ramesh Chand Sharma (supra). In the latter case also the applicant had made a misleading declaration that the application was within the limitation period. Honble Supreme Court observed as under:- that OA filed before the Tribunal after a expiry of three years could not have been admitted and disposed of on merits in view of the statutory provisions contained in Section 21 (1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act., 1985. Considering the law as laid down in these judgments, the OA is liable to be dismissed on account of laches.
8. The OA is, therefore, dismissed as barred by limitation without going into the merits of the case. No costs. ( V.N.Gaur ) ( V. Ajay Kumar ) Member (A) Member (J)