Dtc vs Laxman Singh
2009 Latest Caselaw 5008 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                  Date of Reserve: November 24, 2009
                                                     Date of Order: December 04, 2009

+CM 13976 of 2008 in W.P.(C) 21255 of 2005
%                                                                            04.12.2009
     DTC                                                            ...Petitioner
     Through: Mr. J.B. Malik, Advocate

       Versus

       Laxman Singh                                                 ...Respondent
       Through: Mr. N.K. Jha, Advocate


       JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.     Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


       ORDER

1. This Court vide order dated 18th October 2006 directed the petitioner to pay the

amount equivalent to last drawn wages/ minimum wages to respondent from the date of

filing the present writ petition till disposal under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act.

The present application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC for

modification of the order dated 18th October 2006. The petitioner has prayed that under

the directions of this Court, the petitioner was to pay the last drawn/ minimum wages

whichever was higher to respondent. The management of petitioner vide its resolution

dated 13th August 2008, in the wake of policy decision taken by the competent authority,

is prepared to pay the minimum wages to respondent however, the respondent should

work with the petitioner in lieu of the wages being received. It is stated that this will not

prejudice the rights of the workman and the workman would not be getting money from

WP(C) 21255 of 2005 DTC vs. Laxman Singh Page 1 Of 2 the petitioner without work. A prayer was made to the Court that the workman should be

directed to report for duty.

2. The workman during arguments has stated that he was prepared to join duty if he

was paid wages equivalent to other workmen in the same category.

3. The petitioner has drawn my attention to the order dated 15th April 2004 whereby

this Court had observed that since the respondent has been offered reinstatement and he

was not accepting the same, he cannot be given benefit under Section 17-B of the

Industrial Disputes Act.

4. Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act was incorporated in the statute so that the

workman, during the period he contests the petition, does not face hardships of having no

work and he is paid allowance under the directions of the Court at the same rate he was

drawing his last drawn wages or the minimum wages whichever is higher. In view of this

legislative intent, I consider that the workman cannot refuse to join duty while drawing

allowances which is a sort of unemployment allowance.

5. In the result, I modify the order and the petitioner is directed to pay the minimum

wages /last drawn wages to the workman on his joining duty and working with the

establishment of petitioner, from the date he joins the duties.

6. The review application stands disposed of with above order.

December 04, 2009                                    SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




WP(C) 21255 of 2005    DTC vs. Laxman Singh                              Page 2 Of 2