Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 646 (DEL)

DTC v. GOVT. OF NCT DELHI

2007-03-22

RIMA KOHLI

body2007
JUDGMENT Hima Kohli, J.-With the consent of the Counsels for the parties the matter has been heard and disposed of finally. 2. In the present application, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 3.1.1994, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, whereby the Labour Court has held that the respondent/workman is deemed to be in service of the management with continuity of service and full back wages. The terms of the reference forwarded by the appropriate Government to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, were as below: "Whether Shri Jagjit Singh himself abandoned his job or his services have been terminated illegally and/ or unjustifiably by I the management and, if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect." 3. The petitioner-management contested the claims of the respondent-workman. After perusing the pleadings and entire material on the a record, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court carne to the conclusion that the Clause 14(10(c) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 does not stand the scrutiny arid that in the present case, termination of the respondent was by way of retrenchment. b 4. Counsel for the respondent states that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the issue that is the subject matter of the present writ petition was dealt with by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of matters, the lead matter being 95 (2002) DLT 425=2002 III AD (Delhi) 52= WP (C) No. 4231/1997 entitled DTC v. Om Kumar, decided on 19.10.2001, wherein the Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the DTC, petitioner C therein, against different awards passed with respect to various workmen on the same ground, by holding that invocation of Clause 14(10)(c) of the Regulations by the petitioner-management was not legal. The petitioner DTC then challenged the aforementioned order by filing a series of appeals before the Division Bench of this Court. Vide judgment dated 7.5.2002, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner DTC and upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The said judgment was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court by the petitioner. Vide judgment dated 7.5.2002, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner DTC and upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The said judgment was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court by the petitioner. It is stated by Counsel for the parties that the said SLPs have been disposed of by giving certain directions to the parties to the effect that the respondent workmen therein shall be reinstated without allowing any claim for back wages and that the period covered shall be taken into account by the DTC/ management for the purpose of continuity of service so that retrial/pensionary benefits could be availed of by the respondent/workman. It was also ordered that if the respondent-workmen filed their joining reports within three weeks of the said order at the Headquarter of the DTC, their joining reports shall be considered by the authorities and with these directions, the petitions were disposed of. 5. In the present case, Counsel for the respondent states that though under the impugned award, the Presiding Officer, Labour Cuurt was pleased to direct reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service. and full back wages, he is willing to accept 50% of the back wages, subject to the condition that the order passed by the Supreme Court is followed by the petitioner in respect of the respondent herein. 6. It is directed that in view of the present facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court as also the Supreme Court, the petitioner is directed to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service but with 50% of back wages, keeping in view the present trend of judgments where it is held that in case the workman has not contributed anything to the organisation, then full back wages ought. not to be granted as a rule. The back wages shall be calculated in terms of the present order and be paid to the respondent-workman within four weeks from today. 7. The respondent-workman is directed to report to the Headquarter of the petitioner-management within one week from today. Upon the respondent reporting on duty with the petitioner-management, his joining report shall be accepted by the concerned authority. 8. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of. The interim order stands vacated. 9. 7. The respondent-workman is directed to report to the Headquarter of the petitioner-management within one week from today. Upon the respondent reporting on duty with the petitioner-management, his joining report shall be accepted by the concerned authority. 8. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of. The interim order stands vacated. 9. A copy of this order be given dasti to Counsel for the parties. Petition disposed of.