Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation ... vs Ram Phal, T. No. 31897 S/O Shri Daya ... on 1 November, 2004
Author: M B Lokur
Bench: M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The grievance of the Petitioner is in respect of an Award dated 8th April, 2002 passed by Industrial Tribunal-I in ID No.48/98.
2. The Respondent was working as a driver with the Petitioner and it appears that during a routine check up it was found that he was suffering from colour blindness. Accordingly, the Petitioner pre-maturely retired him with effect from 27th May, 1993.
3. Feeling aggrieved by his pre-mature retirement, the Respondent filed WP (C) No.3484/1993 in this Court. The writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench by an order dated 13th September,1994.
4. It is important to note that the Division Bench observed that despite the policy of the Petitioner of offering an equivalent or lower post to persons who are found medically unfit, no offer of an alternative employment was made in respect of the Respondent.
5. While disposing of the writ petition, the Division Bench also observed that the Respondent ''would be entitled to the pay which he would have received had he been made an offer of employment in accordance with the policy for the period between the date of pre-mature retirement and the date of offer. The back wages would, however, be paid conditional upon the petitioner joining the service with D.T.C. as a Peon.''
6. It was also held that the Respondent would be entitled to the pay of a Peon/Store Attendant from the date of his pre-mature retirement till the date the offer is made provided he accepts the offer made.
7. Subsequently, the Respondent was offered alternative employment as a Peon which he accepted. However, he was not paid the wages due to him and was placed at the bottom of the pay scale of Rs.775-1025. This led to his raising an industrial dispute.
8. The following question was referred for adjudication to the learned Tribunal:-
''Whether Shri Ram Phal Store Attendant is entitled to the maximum pay of Rs.1025/- in the pay scale of Rs.775-1025 along with stagnation increments and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?''
9. It is quite clear from a reading of the decision of the Division Bench rendered in WP (C) No. 3484/1993 decided on 13th September, 1994 that the pay of the Respondent was protected and he could not have been placed in the lowest grade of Rs.775/- in the pay scale of Rs.775-1025. It is also quite clear that the Respondent was entitled to pay for the period from the date of his pre-mature retirement till the date the offer was made for his absorption in a lower grade.
10. This is precisely what has been held by the learned Tribunal in the impugned Award.
11. Since there is no conflict between the impugned Award and the decision of the Division Bench in WP (C) No. 3484/1993, there is no reason to interfere in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.
12. The Petitioner should comply with the order of the Division Bench in WP (C) No.3484/1993 and the Award within a period of six weeks from today and in any case on or before 31st December, 2004
