* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 626/2010
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and Ms. Latika
Chaudhary and Ms. Simran,
Advocates.
versus
KISHAN LAL EX DRIVER ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Prashant Katara, Advocate.
Mr. Anil Mittal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 08.02.2011 C.M.No.15558/2010
This is an application for condonation of delay of 86 days in preferring the appeal. Having heard Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prashant Katara, learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient grounds do exist for condonation of delay and accordingly the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
LPA 626/2010 LPA 626/2010 Page 1 of 4 As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for final disposal. In this appeal the assail is to the order dated 17 th May, 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3103/1999 whereby he has declined to interfere with the award dated 8th January, 1998 passed by the Labour Court whereby he has directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman along with back wages and continuity of service.
2. The facts which have led to filing of this appeal are that the respondent was appointed as a Driver in the appellant-corporation on 25th September, 1984 and the vehicle he was driving hit a bicycle resulting in the death of rider. A charge sheet was issued to him and on enquiry he was found guilty as a consequence of which his services were terminated on 23rd October, 1986. Eventually, the matter was referred to the Labour Court forming subject matter of ID No.638/87 and the award indicated hereinbefore came to be passed. The concerned Labour Court came to hold that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were not sustainable and, therefore, the order of punishment was to pave the path of extinction. Before the writ court it was contended by the appellant-corporation that though ample evidence was adduced before the Labour Court to prove the negligence on the part of the respondent-workman, the Labour Court has fallen into a grave error by expressing opinion that the charges have not LPA 626/2010 Page 2 of 4 been proved. It is also urged that the said finding rested on the ground that no eye witness relating to the accident was produced.
3. Learned single Judge declined to interfere and concurred with the award passed by the Labour Court on the ground that the culpability of the respondent-workmen has not been proved.
4. It is submitted by Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the appellant that the order of the learned single Judge is absolutely fallible inasmuch as there has been no scrutiny of the award and secondly, if the award as well as the order passed by the learned single Judge is affirmed in a case of this nature, compensation should be granted instead of reinstatement with back wages for the simon pure reason that the driver- workman has been out of service from last 24 years and it is extremely difficult to have the same expertise which he had almost more than two decades back. Learned counsel would further submit that he had hardly worked in the corporation and when an accidental death had occurred and the compensation was paid by the corporation, grant of compensation in lieu of service would sub-serve the cause of justice.
5. We have been apprised at the Bar that approximately Rs.4,70,000/- has already been paid to the respondent-workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By virtue of an interim order passed by LPA 626/2010 Page 3 of 4 this Court on 30th August, 2010, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has already been deposited before the Registrar General of this Court. In our considered opinion if the said sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is granted to the respondent- workman towards compensation it will sub-serve the cause of justice.
6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we allow the appeal and modify the order passed by the learned single Judge and direct the amount that has been deposited before the Registrar General of this Court be handed over to the respondent-workman along with interest on proper identification. We may hasten to clarify any amount that has been paid earlier under Section 17B of the Act would not be adjusted as the same is not adjustable. There shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, J.
FEBRUARY 08, 2011 NA LPA 626/2010 Page 4 of 4