Delhi High Court
Indian Red Cross Hospital, A Unit ... vs The Presiding Officer, ... on 6 September, 2006
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this order, I shall dispose of an application under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act made by respondents No. 2. It is submitted in the application that the petitioner has challenged the award directing reinstatement of the respondent No. 2 with full back wages and the operation of award has been stayed. The respondent has not been reinstated in terms of award. The respondent/workman was unemployed and is not engaged in any activity. He, unfortunately, met with an accident on 29.2.000 and lost his left arm and was unable to earn his livelihood. Management was now paying Rs. 4500 per month to nursing orderly, the post on which, the respondent was working and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to last drawn wages during pendency of the writ petition. The application is accompanied by an affidavit wherein the respondent has submitted that he was unemployed and not employed in any establishment.
2. In reply to this application, it is submitted that the respondent had not come to the Court with clean hands. The respondent No. 2 was gainfully employed with M/s British Motor Company after leaving services of the petitioner. He was working there as a mechanic. He met with an accident and after accident, he was unemployed due to his accident. The accident had taken place when he was working with M/s British Motor Company. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 was not required to be reinstated because of subsequent employment with the company.
3. After filing application and reply, the petitioner filed certain documents including the claim petition filed by the respondent before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Gautam Budh Nagar and award given in favor of the respondent under Workmen's Compensation Act. A perusal of the claim petition, filed by the respondent before District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in the year 2000, would show that the respondent claimed that he was working as a mechanic and was earning Rs. 4000/- per month. This would show that the respondent was a trained mechanic and used to repair the vehicles. An award was passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in favor of the respondent on 15.11.2003. The respondent was awarded a sum of Rs. 3,32,160/-. The award would show that he was declared to have 60% disability. His left hand had to be amputed. During evidence before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, the respondent deposed that he was working with British Motor Company and he was earning Rs. 3980/- per month as salary.
4. The respondent was working with the petitioner as nursing orderly. A nursing orderly has to lift and move the patient from one place to another, help doctors. With amputation of one hand, the respondent had become unable to work as nursing orderly. The petitioner had met with an accident in February, 2000 and filed a claim under Workmen's Compensation Act in the same year claiming compensation on the ground of 60% disability. He did not inform the Labour Court either about his employment with British Motor Car Company nor about his accident and 60% disability and kept this information to himself.
5. The respondent was gainfully employed. If there had been no intervention of accident, the respondent would have continued to work with British Motor Company as a mechanic. It is only due to accident that he is unemployed. He has received compensation for lost of earning and disability. The petitioner cannot be asked to pay him wages of a post on which he is not capable of working. The application is, therefore, dismissed.
