Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sh. Krishan Kumar & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2389 Del

                  *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

         + W.P.(C) 4298/1997 & CM No.8130/1997 (u/S 151 CPC for stay)

%                                                 Date of decision: 4th May, 2010

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION                       ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Abhinav Prakash, Advocate

                                       Versus

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR & ORS.                         ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate

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 DTC by this writ petition impugns the ex parte award

dated 1st February, 1996 of the Labour Court holding the removal by the

petitioner DTC of the respondent no.1 workman (Conductor) Krishan Kumar

from service as illegal and unjustified and directing the petitioner DTC to

reinstate the workman with continuity of service and full back wages.

2. This Court while issuing notice of the petition on 14th October, 1997

stayed the operation of the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent

no.1 workman in enforcement of the award. The respondent no.1 workman

Krishan Kumar died during the pendency of the present writ petition and was

substituted by his widow. This Court on 20th August, 1998 also issued

directions for amicable settlement of the matter. On 22nd September, 1998

amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties and it was agreed that

the petitioner DTC will pay to the widow of the deceased workman the sum of

Rs.50,000/- in full and final settlement of all claims of the deceased workman

under the award or otherwise. On the next date i.e. 25th September, 1998,

though the petitioner DTC brought a demand draft for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in

favour of the widow of the deceased workman but the said widow on that date

reneged from the settlement earlier arrived at and pleaded that she wants to

proceed with the writ petition and wants decision on merits. In the

circumstances, this Court issued Rule in the petition and stayed the operation

of the award.

3. The writ petition was listed for final hearing on 3rd October, 2008 when

the parties were referred to the continuous Lok Adalat of this Court. The

respondent / widow of the deceased workman however failed to appear before

the continuous Lok Adalat inspite of service of notice on her as well as her

counsel. The matter was as such returned as unsettled.

4. On 27th February, 2009, the presence of Mr. Vaibhav Jain, advocate on

behalf of the respondent is recorded. However, no vakalatnama of the said

Mr. Vaibhav Jain, advocate or of any other counsel is on record. Only the

vakalatnama of Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, advocate who had appeared for the

respondents till 25th September, 1998 as aforesaid exists on the record. This

Court on 13th January, 2010 directed issuance of notice of default to the

respondent through counsel. However, the said notice remained unserved. In

the circumstances, on 19th April, 2010, direction was issued for listing of the

matter today with notation in the cause list of notice of default to the counsel

for the respondent.

5. Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, advocate earlier appearing for the widow of the

deceased workman has appeared and informs that she had on 25th September,

1998 taken back the file from him and he has appeared today only because of

the notation in the cause list. He otherwise states that he has no instructions

from the widow of the deceased workman. Neither Mr. Vaibhav Jain,

advocate nor anybody else has appeared on her behalf. In the circumstances,

need is not felt to await the respondent any further and the respondent is

proceeded against ex parte. The counsel for the petitioner has been heard.

6. The petitioner DTC contends that it was wrongly proceeded against ex

parte and be given an opportunity to contest the dispute on merits. There is

merit in the said contention of the petitioner. However, since the respondent

workman has died and his widow who was substituted in his place before this

Court has failed to contest the matter, it is not deemed expedient to remand the

matter to the Labour Court for decision afresh after hearing the petitioner

DTC. The petitioner DTC had earlier in 1998 agreed to pay a sum of

Rs.50,000/- to the widow of the deceased workman. More than twelve years

have since elapsed. It is deemed expedient to modify the award impugned in

this petition to that of payment of lump sum compensation for illegal

termination. Such compensation to be awarded / fixed today ought to be

equivalent of Rs.50,000/- which petitioner DTC agreed to pay twelve years

ago.

7. The writ petition is thus partly allowed. The award impugned in this

petition is modified from that of reinstatement with continuity in service and

full back wages to that of payment of lump sum compensation in the sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement, back wages etc. The petitioner DTC is

directed to pay the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the widow of the deceased

workman within six weeks of today. Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, advocate states

that he will attempt to communicate this order to her.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 4th May, 2010 gsr