Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 382 (DEL)

D. T. C. v. SATYA PRAKASH

2007-02-22

REKHA SHARMA

body2007
JUDGMENT Caveat No. 19 of2007: Rekha Sharma, J. (Ora 1)- The caveator is being represented by a Counsel. The caveat is discharged. Writ Petition (C) No. 1189 of2007: 2. The petitioner is Delhi Transport Corporation. It is aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Tribunal No.I, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, dated 9th September, 2005 passed in I.D. No. 54 of 2004 whereby, respondent/workman, Shri Satya Prakash, a driver with the petitioner/DTC, was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. The said award was passed in the absence of the petitioner/DTC. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that prior to the passing of the award in question, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking approval of respondents removal from the service. The said application was allowed vide order dated 18th April, 1998 passed by the then Industrial Tribunal No. II, Tis Hazari Courts, namely, Shri P.K. Bhasin. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, it was after five years of the order dated 18th April, 1998 that the petitioner moved the appropriate Government seeking reference against his removal to the Industrial Tribunal. It is submitted that even if it is assumed that the petitioner was lax in not attending to the reference made to the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent/workman who had moved the Industrial Tribunal after five years was no less negligent. It is, therefore, argued that in order to balance equity, the case should be remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal for decision on merits. Learned Counsel for the respondent and so also the workman who is present in Court have no objection if the case is remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal for decision on merits provided the workman is taken back into service at least from now onwards on payment of current wages as are being paid to the other employees who are similarly placed and also subject to payment of cost. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the Chairman, has no objection to the petitioner being taken back into service subject to his medical fitness and subject to the outcome of the decision of the Industrial Tribunal on merits. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the Chairman, has no objection to the petitioner being taken back into service subject to his medical fitness and subject to the outcome of the decision of the Industrial Tribunal on merits. 4. For what has been noticed above, the award dated 9th September, 2005 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal No.1, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, for trial on merits after giving equal opportunity to both sides subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost to the respondent. The Industrial Tribunal shall make all possible efforts to dispose of the reference as expeditiously as possible. It has been pointed out by learned Counsel for the respondent that the respondent does not possess a valid driving licence and that he would have to apply afresh for the same. He, therefore, requests that he may be granted one months time to obtain a licence before he is called upon to join service. 5. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. The attachment proceedings against the petitioner shall stand dropped. The parties shall appear before the Industrial Tribunal on 5th April, 2007. CM No. 2115/07: 6. This is an application for stay of the award dated 9th September, 2005. Since the writ petition has been disposed, the application does not survive and the same is dismissed as such. Writ Petition disposed of.