VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2013 › High Court of Delhi

Umed Singh v. Presiding Officer & Anr

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
19 December 2013
Bench
A. K. Pathakauthor
Case no.
W.P.(C) 6847/2009

Judgment

order as to costs.

A.K. PATHAK, J. DECEMBER 19, 2013 ps

Case details

Parties and counsel

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P/ (C) 6847/2009 Judgment reserved on 3rd October, 2013 Judgment delivered on 19th December, 2013 UMED SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. versus PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sharat Kapoor and Mr.Noor Alam, Advs. For R-2 Mr.K.K.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Manika Tripath Pandey and Mr.Ashotosh Kaushik, Advs. For R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the Award dated 15th September, 2008 passed by the Labour Court, Delhi whereby reference has been answered against the petitioner. 2. The Secretary (Labour), Government of National Capital Territory referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication in the following terms:- "Whether the action of the management in accepting the resignation of Sh.Umed Singh vide their Order dated 09.01.92 is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" 3. Factual matrix, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, is that petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Hindi Officer by the respondent no.2 vide letter of appointment dated 13th June, 1990. He was put on probation for a period of one year. Probation was to be confirmed in writing. Relevant it would be to refer to Clause 1.10 of the appointment letter, which reads as under:- 1.10. You will be on probation for a period of one year which may be extended if found necessary. During the probation period your services are liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof. On satisfactory completion of probation period, which shall not be deemed to have been so completed unless you are informed of it in writing. Your services will be liable to termination by either side on giving one month"s notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof, provided further that the corporation reserves the right to withhold acceptance of your resignation, if tendered by you in case disciplinary proceedings are pending against you or a decision has been taken by the Competent Authority to issue a Charge-Sheet to you. 4. Petitioner was not confirmed on completion of one year probation period. Instead his probation was extended for a period of six months due to his unsatisfactory performance and acts of insubordination. Immediately after joining, petitioner started making complaints directly to various authorities including Prime Minister of India, without following the procedure of sending such letters/complaints "through proper channel". One of his grievance was that respondent no.2 ought to have created a post of Hindi Officer at its project and not the post of Assistant Hindi Officer. It was also alleged that he was threatened by the Senior Officers" of the corporation. He claimed that he was not given adequate staff. Furthermore, a letter dated 26th November, 1991 was written by him to the Prime Minister. Petitioner"s services were transferred from respondent no.2 to respondent no.3 with effect from 19th December, 1991, subject to his furnishing unconditional option. Petitioner did not submit any option. He again wrote a letter dated 31st December, 1991 to the Prime Minster alleging therein, inter alia, that behavior of his officers was hostile against him. At the end, in the said letter, he opted to resign from the post. Petitioner also sent a resignation letter dated 31st December, 1991 to the Manager (P&A) of respondent no.2. 5. Senior Manager personnel sent a telegram dated 8th January, 1992 to the Chief Engineer to the effect that resignation of petitioner may be accepted and he be relieved immediately. Pursuant thereof, Office Order dated 9th January, 1992 was issued stating therein that resignation tendered by the petitioner had been accepted with effect from 9th January, 1992 (AN) and he stands relieved from duty with effect from 9th January, 199

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.