Delhi High Court
The Divisional Personnel Officer vs Satish Chandra on 28 April, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.1380-81/2006
Date of Decision : 28.4.2009
THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER ......Petitioner
Through : Ms.Getanjali Mohan
with Ms.Vaiishnavi, Advocates.
Versus
SATISH CHANDRA ...... Respondent
Through : Nemo.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner by virtue of the
present writ petition has challenged the award dated 7th April,
2005 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court-II in LCA No.5/1999 titled Sh.Satish Chandra Vs. The
General Manager, Northern Railway & Anr. By virtue of the
aforesaid award, the learned Tribunal has allowed the application
of the respondent/workman under Section 33-C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and
awarded a sum of Rs.59,000/- to the respondent /workman
along with an interest @ 12% from 01.1.1999 to the date of
payment apart from cost of Rs.5,000/-.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the record. Nobody has been appearing on behalf of the
respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is
perverse and against the fact on record. The learned Tribunal
has calculated the amount under Section 33-C(2) of the Act for
two portions. The first portion pertains to the period 5.6.1998 to
17.7.1998 and the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.19,000/- or so being the remaining 50% of the suspension
allowances to be paid to the respondent /workman.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that actually the aforesaid amount was the total
emoluments which the respondent/workman would have earned
for the suspension period which was for the period 29.4.1998
(wrongly recorded as 05.6.1998 in the order) till 17.7.1998.
4. The second component on which the money has been
calculated and paid to the respondent /workman is for the period
24.8.1996 to 15.11.1996 apart from other short portions for a
total length of three months and 19 days.
5. For this period, the amount which has been calculated and
paid by the learned Tribunal is a sum of Rs.40,000/- while as
the counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the
additional affidavit as well as the averments made in the written
statement to the effect that for the period from 24.8.1996 to
15.11.1996, the respondent/workman has indulged in acts of
absenteeism for which he was proceeded domestically and visited
with the punishment of stoppage/withholding of one increment
for a period of one year without cumulative effect. It is further
urged that against that said imposition of punishment, the
respondent /workman had preferred an appeal and the aforesaid
punishment was reduced for a period of one year to six months
so far as the stoppage of increment is concerned.
6. It was contended by the learned counsel that since the
respondent/workman had admittedly been punished for being
absent for the aforesaid period from 24.8.96 to 15.11.96,
therefore, the award /order passed by the learned Tribunal
awarding the monetary compensation in terms of Section 33-C(2)
of the Act was totally perverse and unsustainable.
7. I have carefully considered the averments and gone
through the record. The first portion of the calculation which
has been done by the Tribunal and the respondent /workman
awarding a sum of Rs.19,000/- is ex facie not borne from the
record. The petitioner in their written statement had specifically
stated that for the suspension period i.e. 29.4.1998 to 16.7.1998,
the respondent /workman was treated to be on duty and he was
accordingly paid balance amount of emoluments on revocation of
his suspension on 11.6.2000. The calculation of his emoluments
has been placed on record which shows that the respondent
/workman would have earned a total sum of Rs.19,314/- out of
which an amount of Rs.9,658/- was paid during the suspension.
Therefore, the balance amount was to be payable on account of
suspension having been revoked. While as the learned Tribunal
has erroneously awarded the total amount of Rs.19,000/- for the
aforesaid period of suspension and accordingly, to that extent,
award is perverse and unsustainable and hence it is set aside.
8. The second portion of the award where a sum of
Rs.40,000/- has been paid deserves to be modified on account of
the fact that admittedly for the period 24.8.1996 to 15.11.1996,
the respondent /workman had indulged in acts of absenteeism
for which he was proceeded departmentally and imposed
punishment which was assailed by him and reduced to
stoppage/withholding an increment for six months. Once the
respondent /workman was visited with the punishment, there
was no question of payment of wages/emoluments to him for the
period from 24.8.1996 to 15.11.1996 as he had not worked for
this period but he was punished for being absent for the said
dates. To this extent also, the amount of Rs.40,000/- which has
been arrived at by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside
with the direction to the petitioner to recalculate the amount to
be paid to the respondent/workman for the period from
03.6.1996 to 08.6.1996, 11.6.1996 to 14.6.1996, 24.8.1996 to
15.11.1996 and 15.5.1997 to 14.6.1997. The aforesaid
calculation shall be done by the petitioner itself now and the said
amount arrived at after calculation, shall be paid to the
respondent/workman within six weeks from today failing which
the same shall carry an interest as has been ordered by the
learned Tribunal. To that extent, the award stands modified.
9. With these directions, the award dated 7th April, 2005
passed by the learned Tribunal in LCA No.5/1999 stands
modified to that extent.
The writ petition is disposed of.
V.K. SHALI, J.
APRIL 28, 2009
RN
