Delhi Transport Corporation vs Kishan Lal Ex Driver
2011 Latest Caselaw 757 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     LPA 626/2010

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION               ..... Appellant
                 Through  Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and Ms. Latika
                          Chaudhary and Ms. Simran,
                          Advocates.

                  versus

KISHAN LAL EX DRIVER                                     ..... Respondent
                  Through             Mr. Prashant Katara, Advocate.
                                      Mr. Anil Mittal, Advocate.

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

                           ORDER

%                          08.02.2011
C.M.No.15558/2010

This is an application for condonation of delay of 86 days in

preferring the appeal. Having heard Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel

for the appellant and Mr. Prashant Katara, learned counsel for the

respondent, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient grounds do

exist for condonation of delay and accordingly the delay in filing the

appeal stands condoned.

The application is accordingly disposed of.

LPA 626/2010

As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the

appeal for final disposal. In this appeal the assail is to the order dated 17 th

May, 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3103/1999

whereby he has declined to interfere with the award dated 8th January,

1998 passed by the Labour Court whereby he has directed reinstatement of

the respondent-workman along with back wages and continuity of service.

2. The facts which have led to filing of this appeal are that the

respondent was appointed as a Driver in the appellant-corporation on 25th

September, 1984 and the vehicle he was driving hit a bicycle resulting in

the death of rider. A charge sheet was issued to him and on enquiry he was

found guilty as a consequence of which his services were terminated on

23rd October, 1986. Eventually, the matter was referred to the Labour

Court forming subject matter of ID No.638/87 and the award indicated

hereinbefore came to be passed. The concerned Labour Court came to hold

that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were not sustainable and,

therefore, the order of punishment was to pave the path of extinction.

Before the writ court it was contended by the appellant-corporation that

though ample evidence was adduced before the Labour Court to prove the

negligence on the part of the respondent-workman, the Labour Court has

fallen into a grave error by expressing opinion that the charges have not

been proved. It is also urged that the said finding rested on the ground that

no eye witness relating to the accident was produced.

3. Learned single Judge declined to interfere and concurred with the

award passed by the Labour Court on the ground that the culpability of the

respondent-workmen has not been proved.

4. It is submitted by Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the

appellant that the order of the learned single Judge is absolutely fallible

inasmuch as there has been no scrutiny of the award and secondly, if the

award as well as the order passed by the learned single Judge is affirmed

in a case of this nature, compensation should be granted instead of

reinstatement with back wages for the simon pure reason that the driver-

workman has been out of service from last 24 years and it is extremely

difficult to have the same expertise which he had almost more than two

decades back. Learned counsel would further submit that he had hardly

worked in the corporation and when an accidental death had occurred and

the compensation was paid by the corporation, grant of compensation in

lieu of service would sub-serve the cause of justice.

5. We have been apprised at the Bar that approximately Rs.4,70,000/-

has already been paid to the respondent-workman under Section 17B of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By virtue of an interim order passed by

this Court on 30th August, 2010, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has already been

deposited before the Registrar General of this Court. In our considered

opinion if the said sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is granted to the respondent-

workman towards compensation it will sub-serve the cause of justice.

6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we allow the appeal and modify

the order passed by the learned single Judge and direct the amount that has

been deposited before the Registrar General of this Court be handed over

to the respondent-workman along with interest on proper identification.

We may hasten to clarify any amount that has been paid earlier under

Section 17B of the Act would not be adjusted as the same is not adjustable.

There shall be no order as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

FEBRUARY 08, 2011 NA