New Delhi Municipal Council vs Om Prakash Sethi
2009 Latest Caselaw 3859 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) No. 11078/2005

%                 Date of Decision: 18 September, 2009


# NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
                                                            ..... PETITIONER
!                 Through: Mr. Nitin Dahiya, Advocate.

                                  VERSUS

$ OM PRAKASH SETHI
                                                 .....RESPONDENT

^                 Through: Mr. Ashok Mahajan, Advocate.

CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper 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

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The New Delhi Municipal Council (the petitioner herein) seeks to

challenge an order dated 16.10.2004 in LCA No. 67/2001 awarding an

amount of Rs.62,006/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of

filing fo the claim application till realization in favour of the respondent

workman. The split up of the award amount awarded in favour of the

respondent workman is as under:-

(i) Leave encashment of 240 days amounting to Rs.40,736 @

Rs.5092/- per month

(ii) Rs.450/- on account of reimbursement of medical leave for

the period from 25.08.1967 to 15.10.1967.

(iii)Rs.20,700/- on account of bonus for the period between

01.04.1982 to 31.03.1991.

2 The respondent was in the service of the petitioner. His services

were terminated w.e.f. 27.01.1968. He challenged his termination after

10 years in 1978. The reference on the dispute so raised by the

respondent was made by the Government to the Labour Court in 1978.

The Labour Court vide its award dated 06.11.1995 decided the reference

in favour of the respondent workman and directed his reinstatement.

Since the respondent workman had already attained the age of

superannuation on 31.03.1991 prior to passing of the award in his favour,

directions were given for payment of wages between the date of

reference i.e. 19.08.1978 till the date on which he reached the age of

superannuation i.e. 31.03.1991. It was specifically mentioned in the

award dated 06.11.2005 that the respondent workman will not be

entitled to any other benefits. The award passed by the Labour Court in

favour of the respondent workman was tested up to the Hon'ble Supreme

Court but without any success. However, the Supreme Court while

dismissing the SLP filed by the management being SLP(C) No.39/2000

vide order dated 24.04.2000 took note of the fact that the respondent

workman had made a demand of Rs.4 lacs from the petitioner in terms of

the award in his favour which has been paid to him as admitted by the

workman in his counter affidavit filed before the Supreme Court. It is

after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition of the management by

the Supreme Court, the respondent workman filed an application under

Section 33(C)(2) being LCA No. 67/2001 and claimed the payment on

account of leave encashment, medical reimbursement, bonus and

security deposit. The security deposit has not been allowed by the Labour

Court whereas other three claims made under Section 33(C)(2) have

been granted vide order impugned in the present writ petition.

3 Mr. Nitin Dahiya learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner contends that the relief of leave encashment and bonus that

have been granted by the Labour Court in favour of the respondent

workman is contrary to the terms of the industrial award in his favour

that has been tested up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Mr. Ashok

Mahajan learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent workman

says that denial of other reliefs/claims in the industrial award to the

workman were reliefs relating to increment, promotion and seniority but

according to him, since the respondent was held entitled for

reinstatement/back wages till the date of his superannuation, he was also

entitled have the to benefit of leave encashment and bonus for the

period between the date of his termination and the date on which he had

reached the age of superannuation. On giving my anxious consideration

to this argument advanced on behalf of the respondent workman, I could

not persuade myself to agree with him. The respondent is not entitled

either for leave encashment or for bonus during the period between the

date of his termination and the date of his superannuation because the

industrial award in his favour does not grant him consequential benefits.

What has been awarded to him in the industrial award is only the relief of

reinstatement/back wages from the date of his termination and the date

of his superannuation. He was specifically denied all other benefits which

he otherwise would have got had his reimbursement was with

consequential benefits. I am supported in my view by a judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

& Ors. Vs. Shyam Bihari Lal Gupta reported as (2005) 7 SCC 40 6

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon its two earlier

judgments in Rajasthan SRTC Vs. Ladulal Mali, (1996) 8 SCC 37 and AP

SRTC Vs. Narsagoud, (2003) 2 SCC 212 has held that a workman unless

he is granted the consequential benefits consequent upon his

reinstatement, is not entitled to any other benefit.

4 In the impugned order one of the items of claim granted by the

Labour Court in favour of the respondent workman is claim of Rs.450/- on

account of medical leave encashment and since that claim pertain to the

period from 25.08.1967 to 15.10.1967 during which the respondent

workman was in the employment of the petitioner, the order to that

extent cannot be faulted with. The workman is entitled to this claim of

Rs.450/- on account of medical leave encashment.

5 The impugned award in so far as it grants benefit of leave

encashment and bonus to the respondent workman for the period

between the date of his termination and the date of his superannuation is

concerned, the same is contrary to the terms of the industrial award in

his favour. The impugned order to that extent is, therefore, set aside.

6 For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is partly allowed and

the impugned order in so far as it relates to grant of claim of leave

encashment in the sum of Rs.40,736/- and claim of Rs.20,900/- on

account of bonus is concerned, the same is hereby set aside. The parties

are left to bear their own costs.

This writ petition is disposed of in terms referred above.

SEPTERMBER 18, 2009                                   S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'