Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 438 (DEL)

Union of India v. Om Prakash

2009-04-17

V.K.SHALI

body2009
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the award dated 9th November, 2005 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court-II LCA No. 63/2000 in the case titled Shri Om Prakash Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway on 9th November, 2005. 2. By virtue of the aforesaid award, the application of the respondent/workman under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was allowed and the respondent/workman was entitled to restoration of his pension as was claimed by him along with the arrears of reduction which was done by the petitioner. 3. It may be pertinent here to mention that the respondent/workman had superannuated as Driver-A Grade on 26th March, 1984 from Jind Junction, Northern Railway in the pay scale of Rs.550-700/- with a basic pay of Rs.550/-. The total monthly emoluments of the respondent/workman inclusive of running and other allowances were Rs.2500/-. On the basis of the said emoluments the pension of the respondent/workman was fixed and revised from time to time. On 1st December, 1999 the respondent/workman was drawing a pension of Rs.5008/- under PPO No. 0184020334, however, the same was reduced by the petitioner vide PPO No. 02841188 in the month of June 2000 to a sum of Rs.3484/-. It was this reduction of pension from Rs.5850 to Rs.5008/- which led to invocation of jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal for Labour Court No.II by the respondent/workman on the basis of which the aforesaid impugned award was passed. 4. It has been also agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that the similar reduction of pension in the case of some of the other employees of the petitioner was assailed before the CAT where also somewhat similar order was passed against the same petitioner/management, as it held that once the pension was fixed, then the reduction of the same was to the detriment of the workman/employees of the petitioner. The orders of the CAT were assailed by the petitioner before the High Court vide Writ Petition No.4648/2002 which was transferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Transfer Petition No.106/2006 and which culminated into the judgment titled Union of India Vs. S. N. Dhingra & Ors. JT 2008 (1) SC 145. The said transfer petition was allowed and the matter was heard and disposed of on 14th December, 2007. S. N. Dhingra & Ors. JT 2008 (1) SC 145. The said transfer petition was allowed and the matter was heard and disposed of on 14th December, 2007. In the said judgment it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the petitioner was held to be entitled to reduce the pension inclusive of running allowances, in case, the benefit of the same has been given to the respondent/workman or such similarly placed employees while fixing their pension but as a caveat the Hon’ble Supreme Court had in para 28 of the said judgment observed that whatsoever benefit have been financially availed before refixation of the pension by the petitioner/management in respect of the employees of the petitioner the said benefit shall not be recovered on the basis of said judgment. It was further observed in the said judgment that this non recovery would be applicable not only the respondents before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but also to similarly placed employees. 5. In view of this preemptive directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.R. Dhingra’s case (supra), the present controversy can also be disposed of by setting aside the award dated 9th November, 2005 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court-II LCA No. 63/2000 in the case titled Shri Om Prakash Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway wherein it has directed restoration of pension and grant of arrears of reduction to the respondent/workman. On the contrary, it is held that in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the petitioner is well within their right to reduce the pension without taking into account the running allowances as has been ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Needless to say that whatever payment has been given to the respondent/workman by the petitioner before refixation the same shall not be recovered from the respondent/workman. 6. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.