Union Of India & Anr. vs Om Prakash
2009 Latest Caselaw 1455 Del

*            THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 Writ Petition (Civil) No.5623-24/2006

                                     Date of Decision : 17.04.2009

Union of India & Anr.                               ......Petitioners
                           Through: Mr. B.S.R. Aggarwal, Advocate


                                Versus

Om Prakash                                         ...... Respondent
                           Through : Mr. M.M. Sudan, Advocate
CORUM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be
      allowed to see the judgment?                     YES
2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?          YES
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported
      in the Digest ?                                  YES

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. 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.

V.K. SHALI, J.

APRIL 17, 2009 KP