N.D.M.C. Vs NANAK CHAND
Bench: H.L. GOKHALE,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: C.A. No.-003346-003346 / 2007
Diary number: 17336 / 2006
Advocates: SURYA KANT Vs
PURNIMA BHAT
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3346 OF 2007
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
NANAK CHAND Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6390 OF 2010
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
MAHIPAL SHARMA Respondent(s)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3021 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.2110/2011)
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
RAMESH CHANDER Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted in SLP(C) No.2110 of 2011.
2. Heard Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents in each of the three appeals. All these
Page 2
2
appeals seek to challenge the orders passed by the
Delhi High Court in the writ petitions which were
filed by the appellant New Delhi Municipal Council
before the Delhi High Court. Those three writ
petitions sought to challenge the Award passed by
the Labour Court in favour of the respondents in
each of the three matters.
3. The respondents in each of the three matters,
were working under the appellant Municipal Council
for different purposes. It is the case of the
appellant Municipal Council that respondent Nanak
Chand and Ramesh Chander stopped coming for work
whereas in the case of respondent Mahipal Sharma, he
was working as a driver through a contractor and the
contract was terminated. The case of respondent
Mahipal Sharma is that he had put in about 7 years'
service before he was discontinued. Be that as it
may, the Labour Court has held the
discontinuation/termination of the three employees
to be illegal and therefore, directed their
reinstatement with full back-wages. Those awards
were challenged by the appellant Municipal Council
by filing writ petitions before the Delhi High Court
Page 3
3
and the High Court has passed interim orders in all
the three writ petitions directing the appellant
Municipal Council either to take them back on duty
or to pay them their last drawn wages. It is this
part of the order of the High Court which has been
challenged before this Court by filing these appeals
by special leave. This Court while granting leave on
27.7.2007 in the case of Nanak Chand, granted stay
of the impugned order which has been operating since
then.
4. Having noted these facts, we are of the view
that the writ petitions which are otherwise pending
in the Delhi High Court be decided one way or the
other, at the earliest. We, therefore, dispose of
these appeals and request the Delhi High Court to
hear and decide the writ petitions which are pending
before it, within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Either parties in
the writ petitions will not seek any adjournment
before the High Court.
5. So far as the interim order granted by this
Court in 2007 is concerned, we do not alter the same
Page 4
4
only for the reason that it has been so running for
all these years.
6. We make it clear that in the event these writ
petitions are not decided within the above specified
period of three months, it will be open to the
respondents to apply afresh for grant of wages under
Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
7. The appellant is directed to pay the costs of
Rs.10,000/- to each of the respondents as the
litigating expenses in these appeals. The amount
shall be disbursed within two weeks from today.
8. We grant liberty to both the parties to
mention these matters before the High Court in view
of the order passed by this Court.
.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE)
..........................J (RANJAN GOGOI)
New Delhi; April 03, 2013.