The Management Of Air Force ... vs Ashok Kumar And Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 3974 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C.) No. 5365/2005

%                  Date of Decision: 25th September, 2009


#     THE MANAGEMENT OF AIR FORCE GOLDEN JUBILEE INSTITUTE
                                                      ..... PETITIONER
!              Through: Mr. R. Kaul, Administrative Officer with
                        Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocate

                                   VERSUS

$     ASHOK KUMAR & OTHERS
                                                        .....RESPONDENTS

^                  Through:    Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao, 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)

There are seven workmen in this case and they are respondents

No. 1 to 7. Respondent No. 3 is reported to has expired and his widow

has been substituted as his legal heir in the present matter. Respondent

No. 4 Mr. Mahesh Kumar is stated to be employed elsewhere which fact is

admitted by Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondents. Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao, submits that he is not insisting

for reinstatement of respondent No. 4 because of his gainful employment

elsewhere. As far as the widow of respondent No. 3 is concerned, she

has to be paid wages admissible to her deceased husband under Section

17-B till the date of his death.

2. Ms. Rekha Palli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, on instructions from her client, says that wages due to

deceased respondent No. 3 under Section 17-B till the date of his death

will be paid to his widow, who may collect the same from the office of the

petitioner. Since respondent No. 3 has died during the pendency of the

present proceedings, the question of his reinstatement does not arise.

Now, we are left with five workmen and they are respondents No. 1, 2, 5,

6 & 7. The award impugned by the petitioner management in this writ

petition directs their reinstatement with back wages. These workmen

were engaged by the management of the petitioner as daily wagers.

They continued to work with the petitioner management as daily wagers

till they were terminated from service in 29.09.1995.

3. During pendency of the proceedings in the present writ petition, Mr.

K. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents, on instructions of his clients, suggested that his clients are

ready to forego their claim for back wages if the petitioner agrees to

reinstate them in its service on the same terms and conditions on which

they were working at the time of their termination. On the last date, i.e.

24.09.2009, Ms. Rekha Palli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, took an adjournment to seek instructions from her client on

the above proposal given on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2, 5, 6 & 7.

4. Mr. R. Kaul, Administrative Officer, is present on behalf of the

petitioner. Ms. Rekha Palli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, on instructions from her client, submits that respondents No.

1, 2, 5, 6 & 7 will be reinstated in service by the petitioner management

as daily wagers on the same terms and conditions on which they were

working at the time of termination in 1995.

5. The counsel for both the parties submit that all these workmen are

working at present with the petitioner management in lieu of order under

Section 17-B. But now since the parties have amicably settled their

dispute, the respondents No. 1, 2, 5, 6 & 7 will be treated as daily wager

employees of the petitioner management for all intents and purposes.

Needless to state that respondents No. 1, 2, 5, 6 & 7 will be subject to

the discipline of the petitioner management and will be bound by its rules

and regulations governing appointment of daily wagers. It is made clear

that respondents No. 1, 2, 5, 6 & 7 will not be entitled to any back wages

prior to the date they had resumed work with the petitioner

management. The respondent No. 4 will have no right either for

reinstatement or for back wages since the said claim on his behalf has

been given up by the counsel appearing on his behalf. The impugned

award insofar as it relates to respondent No. 4 is concerned, the

directions for his reinstatement and back wages contained in the said

award are quashed. The petitioner shall pay wages under Section 17-B to

the widow of the deceased respondent No. 3 till the date of death of her

husband within a period of four weeks from today.

6. The impugned award insofar as it relates to respondents No. 1, 2, 3,

5, 6 & 7 is concerned, the said award stands modified as stated above.

This writ petition stands disposed of in terms referred above.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2009                               S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR'