03 April 2013
Supreme Court
Download

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


1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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.