Munna Lal vs University of Delhi

In this intra court appeal filed by Mr. Munna Lal, the Appellant-workman, the challenge is to the order dated 6th November, 2009 dismissing the W.P.(C) No. 12962/2009 upholding the award dated 14th May, 2007 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator.

Vide reference dated 22nd July, 2003, the following reference was made to the Industrial Adjudicator:

"Whether the services of Sh. Munna Lal, S/o Sh. Ram Khillari C/o Delhi Labour Union, Agarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefit in terms of existing laws/Government notification and to what other relief is he/are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect."

Before the Industrial Adjudicator it was submitted that the Appellant had worked as a Security Guard from 13th September, 1991 to 13th May, 1992 and as a Peon with effect from 15th June, 1992 till mid of 1995. Counsel for the Appellant before the Industrial Adjudicator had submitted that the Appellant had worked for 240 days in the year 1992, though he had not worked for 240 days in the immediate preceding year before termination. This, contention, however was rejected by the Labour Court with the following reasoning:

"9. I perused the documents Ex.WW-1/12 & 13. As per document Ex.WW-1/13, workman has worked as a Security Guard for 183 days during 13.09.91 to 15.05.92 i.e. for 8 calendar months. Ex.WW1/12 shows that the he has worked as a Peon for six months from 15.06.92 to 14.12.92. He thereby has worked against different posts for different period and he thereby has not worked for more than 240 days against a particular post during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made i.e. either from 13.05.92 or 14.12.92 and therefore he is not entitled for protection of Section 25F of ID Act. Therefore, he cannot even get benefit or ratio of case law relied by him as above."

MW-1, Mr. T.S. Negi, who was working as an Assistant in Establishment Section with University of Delhi in his affidavit has stated that the Appellant was appointed as a casual unskilled labourer to undertake seasonal and occasional work in the University during the following periods:-

"(a) Cowkidar (sic) on daily wages in the W.U.S. Health Centre (East Delhi) from 01.05.1992 to 31.05.1992 on seasonal requirement.

(b) Unskilled Labourer for three months from 01.08.1992 to 31.10.1992 in the Examination Brach of South Campus to undertake seasonal works.

(c) Lab-Attendant on adhoc basis in the pay scale of Rs950-1400 for a period of six months from 16.08.1995 in department of Zoology, Faculty of Sciences, pending selection of a regular vacancy through due selection process, along with 2 other persons namely Sh. Uttra Kumar and Sh. Ashok Kumar."

The contention of the Appellant before the Labour Court was that he had continued to work from 1992 onwards till mid of 1995. This contention has been rejected by the Trial Court. Though, it appears that the Appellant had in fact worked from 15th June, 1992 to 14th December, 1992 and not up to 31st October, 1992. However, as noticed above the Appellant had also worked as Chowkidar on daily wages in W.U.S. Health Centre (East Delhi) for seasonal work and then for a limited period in the Examination Branch of South Campus again for seasonal work. The two appointments were separate and as per the findings of the Industrial Adjudicator, the employment was contractual and for a limited purpose. Thereafter, there was hiatus and break from December, 1992 till August, 1995. This break is for over three years and the new appointment was also on purely ad-hoc basis as the Appellant was subsequently asked to undertake work of a Laboratory Attendant till regular appointment was made. Thus, the factual matrix of the case is rather peculiar and unusual and this fact has been noticed and taken into consideration.

Counsel for the Appellant had relied upon Section 25F and G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court but this contention was rejected on the basis of the documents and the statement of MW-1, Mr. T.S Negi, who had stated that the Appellant was performing work of seasonal nature. Reference is also made to Ex. WW-1/14 that the Appellant was appointed a Laboratory Attendant in the department of Zoology, University of Delhi on adhoc basis from 16th August, 1995 to 15th February, 1996. Labour Court has further referred to Ex.MW-1/B, which shows that the Appellant had appeared for interview on 15th September, 1997 for the post of Laboratory Attendant. Accordingly, the Industrial Adjudicator held that the Appellant was appointed as a Laboratory Attendant on adhoc contractual basis and after regular selection he was not appointed.

Further, the Appellant had again appeared in the interview for the post of Lab Attendant on 9th April, 1998, but was not found fit. Appellant was also given opportunity to appear in interview on 1st June, 1999 for the post of Chowkidar for regular vacancy. Noticing the facts, the learned single Judge in the impugned order dated 6th November, 2009 has observed that the Appellant had participated and appeared in interviews held by the Respondent university for the posts of Laboratory Attendant, Office Attendant, Chowkidar on four occasions i.e. 15th September, 1997, 9th April, 1998, 30th July, 1998 and 1st June, 1999. He remained unsuccessful in the interviews. Learned single Judge has also observed that the Appellant was appointed on tenure contractual basis for a limited period for specific seasonal work. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.