Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 63 (DEL)

MURLI DHAR v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

1998-01-22

B.K.RAMAMOORTHY

body1998
K. Ramamoorthy, J ( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as driver in the Delhi Transport Corporation on December 1964. It is common ground that there was a strike by all the drivers employees of the Corporation and those who have participated in the strike were dismissed from service. Later on settlement was arrived at and by virtue of the settlement the striking employees were taken back and they were given benefit as mentioned in the scheme including pension. The petitioner was one of those employees was dismissed from service and he attained the age of superannuation on 31. 12. 1992. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: DIRECT respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioner the arrears of wages and other allowances such as DA, HRA, CCA and leave encashment alongwith interest in terms of order No. PLD (IV Cell)/91/83 dated 4. 1. 1991 (Annexure -B) and DIRECT respondent No. 1 to duly retire the petitioner No. 1 to duly retire the petitioner in accordance with the rules and regulations of DTC w. e. f. 31. 12. 1988 the date on which he would have retired in normal course and permit him to opt for the pension scheme which had been made applicable to respondent No. 1 in terms of office order No. 16 dated 27. 11. 1992 (Annexure-E ). ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, similar writ petition bearing No. 1310 of 1993 was filed which was listed before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench allowed the said writ petition and granted relief to the petitioner. The position of the petitioner is exactly the same and therefore, he is entitled to allow the writ petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment dated 21. 10. 1994 submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted by this court and the respondent (Corporation) cannot have any objection. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 24. 03. 1988 and he was attained the age of superannuation in 31. 12. 1988 and he has filed the writ petition in 1996 and therefore, his guilty of delay and latches and no proper explanation has been given for delay and there is no meted out circumstances warranted for interference of this court at the intance of the petitioner. 03. 1988 and he was attained the age of superannuation in 31. 12. 1988 and he has filed the writ petition in 1996 and therefore, his guilty of delay and latches and no proper explanation has been given for delay and there is no meted out circumstances warranted for interference of this court at the intance of the petitioner. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents raised another hyper-technical argument that the earlier settlement was arrived at between the workers and the Central Government and now the Corporation is under the control of Delhi Adminsitration is different entitiy and therefore the first respondent is not bound by the terms of the settlement. The fact that the first respondent is the successor of the earlier Organisation cannot be disputed. ( 6 ) I am of the view that the matter is covered by the judgment of Division Bench dated 21. 10. 1994 which reads as under: CW No. 1310/93 Rule D. B. The matter in this case is short. We, therefore proceed to hear this matter. IT is admitted case of the Delhi Transport Corporation that after the strike of the D. T. C. employees was over, a policy was taken to take back all the employees who had gone on strike. It was also decided that 50% of the wages would be paid for the period of strike. THIS policy was implemented, and the drivers were taken back, and 50% of the wages for the period of strike was paid. THE petitioner was denied 50% of the wages as he was not taken back, admittedly for the reason that he had superannuated on 31. 12. 1988, during the period of strike. WE see no reason why the petitioner should be dealt with differently from other drivers who were on strike. In our view, the petitioner was equally entitled to receive 50% of the wages, which others got till the time when he superannuated. ACCORDINGLY, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to 50% of the wages till the date of his superannuation, and we further direct that 50% of the wages be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from today. AS regards the claim for pension, the petitioner would be entitled to receive pension in terms of the scheme. ACCORDINGLY, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to 50% of the wages till the date of his superannuation, and we further direct that 50% of the wages be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from today. AS regards the claim for pension, the petitioner would be entitled to receive pension in terms of the scheme. He should file up all the papers and submit the same to the respondent for being processed in accordance with law. THE rule is made absolute, and the petitioner stands disposed of. ( 7 ) THE petitioner cannot be denied the relief and I am quite unable to appreciate the arguments on behalf of the respondents and I have absolutely no hesitation in rejecting the same when there is a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to 50% of the wages till the date of his superannuation and I further direct that 50% of the wages be paid to the petitioner within eight weeks from today. ( 9 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs. ( 10 ) AS regards the claim of the petitioner the petitioner would be entitled to receive pension in terms of the scheme. He should file up all the papers and submit the same to the respondents for being processed in accordance with law. Dasti.