3 t' t" $-*IN THE 18 + RAMESH KUMAR t9 + SANJAY KUMAR 2T -L SANJEEV KUMAR ..... Petitioner Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI w. P. (C) 1075/2011 .... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate. 20 + Through: VCTSUS MLiNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI PUSHPA RANI ETSUS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate. w.P. (c't t077t20tl ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate. ..... Respondent ..... Respondent ..... Petitioner ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate. w. P. (C) 1078/2011 Through: Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ' Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate. W,P. (C) No.7075,7076,7077 ond 7078/2077 Page 7 of 9 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified JT CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER Yo 27.07.2011 l. Shri Ramesh Kumar, the Petitioner in writ petition (civil) No. 1075 of 2011, was appointed as a School Affendant in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD') with effecr from l't May 1998 on daily wage basis. His services were regularized with effect from 1't April 2005 although it is the case of the Petitioner that he was entitled for regularization from the date of his initial appointment. It is stated that his services were illegally terminated with effect from 25ft Janua ry 2007 on the basis of allegations that he had obtained employment fraudulently on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. 2. shri sanjay Kumar, the petitioner in writ petition (civil) No. 1076 of 2011, was appointed as a chowkidar in the MCD with effect from llft January 1999. His services were regularized with effect from l4m Februarv 2002. on the same ground his services were terminated on 31't January 2007. 3. smt. Pushpa Rani, the petitioner in writ petition (civil) No. 1077 of 2071, was appointed as a Nursery Aya in the MCD on daily wage basis W.P, (C) No.7075,7076 7077 ond 70Z8/2077 poge 2 olg rt with effect from l't July 1998. on similar grounds her services were terminated on 5ft August 2000. she was re-engaged on 6th February 2oo2 and her services were againterminated with effect from 3'd February 2007. 4. Shri sanjay Kumar, the Petitioner in writ petition (civil) No. l07g of 2011, was appointed as a school attendant in the McD with efflect from 29h May 1998. on similar grounds his services were terminated on 5,h August 2000. He was re-engaged on 5ft February 2002 and his services were again terminated with eflect from 2nd February 2007. 5. The four workmen joined together in filing a single statement of claim before the Labour Court under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,7947 ('ID Act'). By an order dated 22nd october 200g the petition was dismissed as not maintainable by the Labour Court. It was held that under Section 10(4A) ID Act only an individual workman could raise an iudustrial dispute. Thereafter, each of the workmen filed individual petitions before the Labour Court. Ramesh Kumar filed ID No. 372 of 2008, sanjay Kumar ID No. 375 of 2008, sanjeev Kumar ID No. 374 of 2008 and Pushpa Rani ID No. 376 of 2008. Four separate but identical impugned orders were passed on I't September 2010 by the Labour Court. By the impugned orders the Labour Court rejected the claim of each of the Petitioners. w.P. (C) No.7075,7076,7072 ond 7078/2077 Poge 3 ol 9 6. upon receipt of notice, AR for the MCD appeared and filed a written statement in each of the claim petitions. It was submitted that each of the Petitioners had been engaged on the basis of forged documents. It was stated that the applicant had, in connivance with some unscrupulous persons, obtained forged engagement leffers. A Screening Committee had been constituted to probe into the matter. The Screening Committee found that there were 105 cases where signatures of the competent authority on the engagemdnt letter were found to be forged. It was further stated that each of the applicants had obtained sanction/engagement on daily wages on the basis of forged documents with connivance of one Shri Rajdin and Shri Praveen Dubey. Their engagement was void ab initio and therefore there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the claimants. Consequently, the question of reinstating the claimants in.accordance with law in terms of Section 2s-F, G and H.of the ID Act did not arise. 7. On completion of the pleadings the following issues were Ii'amed by the Labour Court: "1. Whether the workman has joined the services of management on 29.O5.gB and in which department? 2. Whether the workman is entitled to relief as claimed in claim petition." W,P. (C) No,7075,7076 7077 ond 7078/2071 the the Poge 4 of 9 8. The impugned order dated l't September 2010 of the Labour Court noted that while the workman examined himself, ',on behalf of management, AR tor management submitted that he did not want to lead evidence.,, The workmen further exhibited nine documents. Thereafter, the management was given an opportunity to lead evidence. However, ccr{R for the management stated that he did not want to lead evidence on behalf of the management. Hence, management evidence was closed.,, The Labour Coun while . deciding issue No. t held that it had been admitted by the management that workmen had been employed with the management on the date as claimed by theni in their respective claim petitions. The Labour court proceeded to observed "however, he joined on the basis of forged documents." The conclusion was therefore that the r,vorkmen had joined the services of the MCD on the date as claimed .,with the averments of management that on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.,, 9. In the absence of the management leading any evidence, it is not understood on what basis the Labour Court came to the above conclusion that the workmen had joined on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. such a serious charge could not have simply been accepted as proved by the management without any evidence being led on its behalf. on the othbr hand, there was no cross-examination by the AR of the W.P. (C) No.7075,70Z6,7OZ7 ond 707g/2077 Poge 5 ol 9 6 0 management of the workmen witness. It appears that the management did not even file evidence by way of affrdavit: Consequently, there was no rebuttal of the evidence produced by the workmen in support of their respective claims that they indeed joined the services of the management with effect from'the respective dates as stated in their separate claim petitions. 10. The decision of the Division Bench of this court in soran singh v. Union of India 2008 (119) FLR 769 already underscored the need for the management to lead evidence to rebut the case of the workmen. Without leading any evidence or not even filing an affrdavit by way of evidence, it is not fair for the Labour Court to have simply accept the submission of the MCD. 1 1. Learned counsel for the MCD before this Court is unable to defend the action of the MCD in choosing not to lead evidence particularly when its case was that each of the Petitioners had produced forged documents for the purpose of obtaining appointment. 12. This court has, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside the impugned orders dated l't September 2010 in regard to the above finding. W.P. (C) No.70Zs,7076, tOZ7 ond 707A/2077 Poge 6 of 9 13. On the issue whether the workmen are entitled to relief the Labour court negatived it on the ground that the petitions were baned by limitation. This finding of the Labour Court is also unsustainable in law. The fact was that the Petitioners had within time filed a joint petition which was rejected on purely technical grounds by the Labour court by the order dated 22"d october 2008. Thereafter, each of the petitioners had filed a separate petition. Admittedly. if the period during which the petitioners were pursuing the joint petition under section 10(4A) ID Act is excluded, each of the separate petitions filed by them before the Labour court subsequently would be within time. 14' This Court sets asides the findings of the Labour Court on the second issue holding that the individual petition of the Respondents workmen were baned by time. 15. consequently, the impugned orders dated l't september 2010 passed by the Labour court in each of the petitions are hereby set aside. 16. Learned counsel for the MCD pleaded that if the impugnecr orders could not be sustained in law on the ground that the separate petitions of the Resporrdent workmen before the Labour Court were not time barred, then the cases should be remanded to the Labour Court for a fresh decision W.P. (C) No.1075,7076,7072 ond TOZB/2011 pogeTolg FI Io on merits. 77. This Court finds no merit in the above submission. with the management choosing not to lead evidence before the Labour Court and the management evidence having been already closed and the management not having challenged the order by which its evidence was closed, remanding the cases to the trial court for a fresh hearing would nor serve any purpose. 18. In conclusion, this Court would like to observe that it is a matter of concem that in a case where the MCD took the stand that the petitioners had obtained employment on the basis of forged documents, the AR of the MCD ought not to have stated before the Labour Court that MCD did not wish to lead any evidence or even cross-examine the workmen,s witness. The stand of the MCD is totally inexplicable. It would, therefore, be appropriate for the MCD to institute an inquiry into why in these petitions before the Labour Court the MCD chose not to lead evidence and cross- examine the workmen's r,i'itness. The MCD shoulcl fix responsibility.on the concerned person for this lapse. 19. consequently, while allowing each of the writ petitions, and setting aside the impugned orders dated I't september 2010 of the Labour court. this Court directs the reinstatement of the Petitioners without back wages. w.P. (C) No. 7075, 10Z6 7077 ond t078/20tt page I oI g t . :' rf i. tl Further, as regards the Petitioners producing allegedly forged docurhent while seeking employment it is open to the MCD to proceed against them in accordance with law after issuing to each of them a proper show cause notice and affording each of them an opportunity of defending themselv?s. The MCD will take further steps in accordance with law. 20. The writ petitions are allowed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs s. MURALIDHAR, J ffFrf,2orr w.P. (C) Na.7075,7076 7077 ond 7078/2077 Poge 9 ol 9