Delhi Transport Corporation vs Ishwar Singh & Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 134 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+    LPA 1763/2006

     D.T.C.                        ..... Appellant
                      Through Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Advocate.

                versus

     ISHWAR SINGH & ORS.                    ..... Respondents

                      Through Mr. T.K. Samanta, Advocate.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

              ORDER

%             16.01.2009

     C.M. No. 15445/2008

1. This is an application by the respondent-workman for recall of

the order dated 14th August, 2007 disposing of the Letters Patent

Appeal on the basis of compromise recorded before the Mediation

and Conciliation Centre. It is alleged in the application that the

respondent-workman was pressurized to accept settlement by the

learned Mediator, who is an advocate on the panel of the Delhi

Transport Corporation. The settlement agreement dated 7th May,

2007 is questioned.

2. We do not find any merit in the present application. Order

sheet reveals that during the pendency of the present appeal, with the consent of the parties, by order dated 1st May, 2007 the matter

was referred to the Delhi high Court Mediation and Conciliation

Centre. Respondent No. 1 workman-applicant was present on the

said date in person and had agreed to try settlement through

mediation. Thereafter, DTC and the respondent-workman appeared

before the Mediation Centre and the compromise agreement dated

7th May, 2007 was recorded. The compromise agreement is not only

signed by the respondent-workman but by his family members i.e. his

wife and two daughters. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the

plea of the respondent-workman that the compromise was a result of

force, coercion and pressure put by the Mediator.

3. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the respondent was

reinstated as a conductor with effect from 9th May, 2007 but with the

respondent-workman giving up his claim for back wages except the

amount paid to him under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

In other words, the appellant-DTC had given up their challenge to the

award directing reinstatement of the workman and the respondent-

workman had given up his claim to 30% of the back wages, but the

respondent-workman was entitled to payments under Section 17B of

the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, as per the terms of the

settlement, the reinstatement was to be counted for the purpose of

service benefit including pension, gratuity and seniority and an order to this effect was also passed on 14th August, 2007 clarifying that in

case the respondent-workman has any grievance, he could take up

the issue with the competent authority.

4. The respondent-workman has taken advantage of the said

settlement. The appellant-corporation have also acted upon the

settlement agreement. This application for recall of the order dated

14th August, 2007 was filed after more than 14 months on 21st

October, 2008. The application reveals that the respondent was paid

Rs.2,51,884/- upon reinstatement.

For the reasons stated above, the application is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

JANUARY 16, 2009 VKR