Dismissed

M.C.D v. Bhagirath Singh

Delhi HC4 Aug 2011W.P.(C)/5752/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the award of an Industrial Adjudicator granting Rs.10,000 compensation for illegal termination of employment. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim that the finding was perverse or the award arbitrary, as there was no evidence to rebut the evidence supporting the petitioner's employment of the workman. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed in its entirety. The award of the Industrial Adjudicator dated 10th November, 2006 is affirmed.

M.C.D Vs Bhagirath Singh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of decision: 4^th August, 2011

¶3

W.P.(C) 5752/2008

¶4

M.C.D ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahat Bansal for Ms. Amita Gupta, Adv.

¶5

Versus

¶6

BHAGIRATH SINGH ..... Respondent

¶7

Through: None.

¶8

CORAM : -

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶10

Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary in the Digest?

¶13

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶14

The respondent workman is reported to have been served by ordinary process. None appears. The respondent workman is proceeded against ex parte .

¶15

The challenge in this petition is to the award dated 10^th November, 2006 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:-

¶16

“Whether the services of Sh. Bhagirath Singh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

W.P.(C)5752/2008

¶19

management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

¶20

and granting the relief to the respondent workman of lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- only. Notice of the petition was issued and subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses in this Court the operation of the award stayed. The said amount is stated to have been deposited. The respondent workman as aforesaid has failed to appear inspite of service.

¶21

The case of the respondent workman before the Industrial Adjudicator was that he was employed with the petitioner MCD as a Mali/Beldar w.e.f. 26^th May, 1991 in Shahdara (South) Zone as a muster roll Beldar and his services were transferred to Central Zone w.e.f. May, 1992 and he was being paid wages throughout as per the Minimum Wages Act; his grievance was that his services were terminated w.e.f. 26^th July, 1993 without assigning any reason.

¶22

The petitioner MCD contested the aforesaid claim pleading that the respondent workman had never worked with the petitioner MCD and there was no entry of the name of the respondent workman in the muster roll.

¶23

The Industrial Adjudicator on the basis of the petitioner MCD in the cross examination of the respondent workman not putting the suggestions

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

W.P.(C)5752/2008

¶26

that the respondent workman had never worked with the petitioner MCD and on the basis of the witness of the petitioner MCD in the cross examination admitting that the name of the respondent workman existed in the muster roll held the respondent workman to have been in the employment of the petitioner MCD and thus awarded the relief as aforesaid.

¶27

The aforesaid are findings of fact and on the basis of appreciation of evidence and the counsel for the petitioner MCD has been unable to show anything as to how the said findings are perverse or unreasonable. Even otherwise in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it is not deemed appropriate to interfere with the award aforesaid and it appears that the petitioner MCD must have spent more money in preferring and pursuing this petition than what it was liable for under the award.

¶28

There is no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed.

¶29

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶30

(JUDGE)

¶31

AUGUST 4, 2011 pp..

¶32

Page 3 of 3

¶33

W.P.(C)5752/2008

M.C.D v. Bhagirath Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C.D v. Bhagirath Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajender Prasad Vs Director General Works Cpwd &

Hans Raj Vs UOI & Ors.

Krishna Devi & Ors. Vs Amir Singh &Ors.

Dr.Suresh Ch.Malik Vs the Vice Chancellor & Ors.

Ranutrol Industrties Tld. Vs Bahadur Singh &Ors.

S. Gopinathan Nair Vs UOI & Ors.

Nina Padma Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Suresh Kalmadi (in Judicial Custody) through Sumeer Kalamadi Vs Union of India and Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Reena Nigam & Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Raniya @Rami Devi & Ors.

Icici Lombard Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Memuna Begum & Ors.

D.T.C. Vs Lata Mansukhani & Ors.

Satish Vs Sandeep & Ors.

Satish Vs Mahesh & Ors.