Delhi High Court
Mohd.Atiq vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Ix ... on 4 March, 2010
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5376/1998
Date of Decision : 4th March, 2010
MOHD.ATIQ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain with Mr. Shyam Sunder,
Advocates.
versus
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT IX & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anand Yadav, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
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 No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner workman has preferred this writ petition with respect to the award
st
dated 1 September, 1998 of the Labour Court on the following reference -
"Whether the termination of services of S/Sh. Jagdish Chander and Mohd.
Atiq is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and
what directions are necessary in this respect?"
The award holds the inquiry held by the respondent No.2 employer for
termination of both the workmen to be illegal but holds that the relief of reinstatement
had become infeasible for the reason of both the workmen having crossed the age of
retirement. The award thus only grants the relief to both the workmen of the quantum of
last drawn wages from the date of termination till the date of retirement. The award
notices that the workman Shri Jagdish Chander was last drawing wages at the rate of
Rs.587.25p per month and the petitioner herein Mohd. Atiq was drawing wages at the
rate of Rs.350/- per month.
2. The respondent No.2 employer did not challenge the award. However both the
workmen preferred separate writ petitions with respect to the award; the writ petition of
Mohd. Atiq being the writ petition under consideration and the writ petition of Shri
Jagdish Chander having been numbered as CW No.5899/1998. Though at one stage both
the writ petitions were being taken up together but CW No.5899/1998 was decided vide
judgment dated 15th October, 2004. The award was modified to the extent that Shri
Jagdish Chander, petitioner in that writ petition, was held entitled to consequential
benefits in addition to the relief of wages. The said judgment has attained finality.
3. The counsel for the petitioner seeks the disposal of this writ petition also in terms
of the judgment aforesaid in the case of Shri Jagdish Chander. It is the contention of the
counsel for the respondent No.2 employer that the claim of the petitioner is not for
consequential benefits.
The prayer clause in the writ petition which is as under:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that the appropriate writ be issued quashing the Award
of the Labour Court and directing it to Award wages at the current rate and
not at the rate of last drawn wages as directed.
The petitioner may also be awarded costs of the writ petition.
Any other relief or reliefs be also given to the petitioner as the Hon'ble court
may deem fit and proper."
The counsel for the petitioner has handed over the order dated 19th January, 2004
in CW no.5899/1998 preferred by Shri Jagdish Chander. From the said order it transpires
that in the writ petition as filed by Shri Jagdish Chander also the only relief claimed was
of issuance of an appropriate writ as the court may deem proper; subsequently Shri
Jagdish Chander filed CM No.601/2004 to amend the prayer clause in the writ petition to
claim consequential benefits. This Court held that the prayer clause as existing was quite
wide and would also include the consequential benefits. The same is the position in the
present case also. In fact the claim for wages at the current rate as expressly claimed by
the petitioner can be nothing except a claim for consequential benefits.
4. The counsel for the respondent No.2 employer has also sought to distinguish the
case of Shri Jagdish Chander from that of the petitioner herein. Attention is invited to
para 19 of the award and to paras 6,7 & 9 of the judgment dated 15th October, 2004
(supra) to contend that Shri Jagdish Chander had applied for reinstatement with the
respondent and which request was allowed and Shri Jagdish Chander had joined the
duties on 25th August, 1992 and thereafter on his own accord resigned on 15th May, 1995.
It is contended that the award in the case of Shri Jagdish Chander of back wages and
consequential benefits in the circumstances was till the date of his rejoining in 1992 only
and not till the age of superannuation as in the case of the petitioner herein.
5. I am however unable to find in the judgment dated 15th October, 2004 that it was
this fact which prevailed with this Court in granting the relief of consequential benefits to
Shri Jagdish Chander. Rather this Court held -
"Be that as it may, the petitioner has been granted backwages by the Labour
Court and the consequential benefits thereof could hardly be denied to the
petitioner because the department itself stated before the Labour court that
inquiry proceedings were vitiated and misconduct of the workman was not
established, much less proved before the Labour Court."
Thus the factum of Shri Jagdish Chander rejoining duties and subsequently
resigning is irrelevant.
6. The counsel for the respondent No.2 employer also contends that the judgment of
the Supreme Court in MP State Electricity Board Vs. Jarina Bee 2003 (6) SCC 141
though noticed in the judgment dated 15th October, 2004 has not been correctly applied.
This Court after noticing the said judgment held the same not applicable for the reason of
the back wages having already been granted to the workman and being not under
challenge and the question for consideration being of the grant of consequential benefits
only.
7. This Court is of the considered opinion that when two petitions have arisen from
the common award, they ought not to be dealt with separately. The respondent No.2
employer has accepted the judgment dated 15th October, 2004 by allowing it to attain
finality. The distinction sought to be drawn between the two cases is not found to have
any nexus to the relief claimed.
8. The petition is therefore allowed. The award dated 1st September, 1998 is
modified to the extent that the petitioner shall also be entitled to consequential benefits in
addition to the relief granted in the award. The respondent No.2 having compelled the
petitioner to litigate for the last over five years inspite of the judgment dated 15th
October, 2004 in a similar matter arising from the same award is also burdened with costs
of these proceedings of Rs.15,000/-. However, if the payment in terms of the above is
made by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner within six weeks, the respondent No.2
shall not be liable for payment of costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MARCH 04, 2010
pp
