Sh. Raghubir Singh (Driver) vs Delhi Transport Corporation
2009 Latest Caselaw 1606 Del

*            THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 18147/2006

                                      Date of Decision : 23.04.2009

Sh. Raghubir Singh (Driver)                    ......Petitioner
                       Through: Mr.M.Hassain, Advocate


                                 Versus

Delhi Transport Corporation            ...... Respondent
                      Through : Ms.Arati Mahajan, Advocate

CORAM:
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 has challenged the award dated 22nd May, 2006

passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II in ID No. 11/2004 in case titled

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shri Raghubir Singh. By virtue of

which the learned Tribunal instead of directing reinstatement and

payment of back wages had granted a onetime lump sum

compensation of Rs.15,000/-

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

quantum of compensation which has been awarded to the

petitioner/driver in the instant case is grossly inadequate, keeping in

view the fact that the petitioner has rendered approximately four years

of service and the fact that in case he would have been directed to be

reinstated then he would have continuously worked for a long period

of time till the age of superannuation. It has also been urged by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been

given litigation expenses for conducting the matter both before the

Conciliation Officer and then before the Labour Court as well.

3. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent/DTC has

contended that the total quantum of service which has been put by the

petitioner as a driver with the respondent/DTC was 3 ½ years out of

which for 1 ½ years he had worked as on retainer basis which

practically means on daily wage basis. In this system, as and when

his services would be requisitioned, he would be paid his wages.

Thereafter, he was converted on a monthly basis and put on probation

and for this purpose during probation he worked for approximately

two years, however, even during this short tenure of 3 ½ years the

conduct of the petitioner/driver was not befitting that of a driver on

account of the fact that he frequently indulged in absenteeism on

several occasions because of which the functioning of the public

transport system was jeopardized.

4. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent

/DTC that there are judgments to the effect that there is no straight

jacket formula has been evolved for taking various factors into

consideration while calculating the compensation. This aspect has

been dealt with by the Apex Court in different judgments and different

points like the length of service served or yet to be served, conduct of

employee, wages earned by him, capacity of the employer to pay

compensation, etc. are taken into consideration. The chances of the

workmen having gainfully employed during the period of alleged

termination have been taken into account.

5. In all these cases, the learned counsel for the respondent/DTC

contended that the quantum of compensation which had been

awarded to the workman was in the range of Rs.10,000/- to

Rs.30,000/-. Reliance in this regard was placed on case titled Nagar

Mahapalika Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 2113, Branch

Manager, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation

Ltd. & Anr. Vs. S.C. Pandey 2006 (2) SCALE 619 and I.T.C.

Monghyr, Bihar Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna, Bihar

1978 (3) SCC 504.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the

respective sides and also gone through the award of the learned

Labour Court.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was

working as a driver. It has also come on record that the conduct of

the petitioner even as a driver had not been befitting that of a driver.

The learned Labour Court has observed that the petitioner had

absented himself from duty on several occasions was irregular in

performance of his duties.

8. The petitioner who was admittedly functioning as a driver of a

public transport system was expected to maintain high degree of

punctuality and efficiency because much will depend on the drivers of

the public transport system to maintain the overall efficiency and

punctuality of the fleet which has to transport the people of the city on

daily basis. Therefore, this factor if taken into consideration certainly

goes against the petitioner/driver. The second factor which has been

taken into consideration is the total number of years of service where

broadly speaking there is not much of difference between the learned

counsel for the parties. The petitioner is contending that he had

served the organization for a period of four years. The learned

counsel for the respondent has contended that he has actually served

for a period of 3 ½ years out of which 1 ½ years he was on a retainer

basis which practically means as daily wager. This aspect has not

been refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner from the record,

thereby we are left with total service of approximately of two years

having been rendered by the petitioner with the respondent/DTC.

9. The petitioner in the writ petition itself has stated that his basic

salary at the time of his alleged termination was Rs.322/- or so and

other allowances which he would have earned. Accordingly, the salary

of the petitioner would have been in an around of Rs.600/- or so per

month. The petitioner had rendered service with the respondent/DTC

for the period of 2 years or so and if quantum of compensation is

calculated, it would be more than two years' wages, if calculated @

Rs.600/- per month.

10. Another aspect of the matter which perhaps seems to have

weighed with the learned Tribunal while fixing the compensation is the

fact the petitioner was working as a driver of a heavy duty vehicle and

a skilled person of his type would hardly remain idle even during the

period when his services were terminated. In addition to this, there

was a considerable gap between the date of his termination and the

date of award, and therefore, I feel that the learned Labour Court was

practically right in fixing onetime lump sum compensation of

Rs.15,000/- to be paid to the petitioner in exercise of its powers under

section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

11. So far as the question of payment of litigation expenses is

concerned, this is certainly not a prayer in the writ. As regards the

litigation expenses for conducting the proceedings before the learned

Labour Court, it was for the petitioner to make a prayer to the said

forum and the Tribunal was to consider the request of the petitioner

either to allow or disallow the said prayer. Even in the present writ

petition, there is no prayer to the effect that while computing the

compensation, the factum of the litigation expenses which the

petitioner might have incurred in carrying out the entire exercise

ought to have taken into account. Therefore, this aspect of the matter

seems to be totally an after thought.

12. For the foregoing reasons mentioned above, I do not find any

illegality, perversity or any violation of rule and regulations of principle

of natural justice, and therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition

and accordingly the same is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

V.K. SHALI, J.

APRIL 23, 2009 KP