Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Chand Ram (Deceased) Through ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 171 Del

 *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 +          W.P.(C) Nos.9301/2004, 1502/2005 & 12438/05


 %                                               12th January, 2011


1. W.P.(C) No.9301/2004


SHRI CHAND RAM                                   ...... Petitioner
                                  Through:   None.
                         VERSUS

D.T.C. & ANOTHER                                    ...... Respondents

Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Mayank Joshi, Advocate.

2.W.P.(C) No.1502/2005

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ........Petitioner Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Mayank Joshi, Advocate.

VERSUS SHRI CHAND RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH L.R.s . .......Respondents Through: None

3.W.P.(C) No.12438/05

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ........Petitioner Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Mayank Joshi, Advocate.

                         VERSUS
SHRI CHAND RAM                                  .......Respondent
                                  Through:   None.

 CORAM:

  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

W.P.(C) Nos.1502/2005 and 12438/05

1. In Writ Petition (C) No.1502/05 challenge is laid to the

order dated 24.12.02 passed by the Industrial Tribunal rejecting the

application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. In W.P.(C) No.12438/05 challenge has been laid to the Award

dated 10.2.2004 whereby the workman has been directed to be

reinstated in service with payment of back wages and consequential

benefits. Counsel for the petitioner states that the workman has

expired about two years back on 10.2.2009 and the issue will now only

remain of monetary claim.

2. It has been held by a learned Single Judge of this Court

(Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.) in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation

Vs. Shyam Lal in W.P.(C) No.3633/04 decided on 1.7.2010 reported

as Manu/DE/1634/2010 after reviewing various earlier judgments, that

the main adjudication with respect to termination takes place in

industrial dispute which is raised by the workman and the decision

which is rendered on an application under Section 33(2)(b) is only a

prima facie adjudication and which does not bind the Labour Court

which decides the main industrial dispute raised by the workman

against his termination. In the present case, it is seen that when in the

main industrial adjudication challenging the termination, the Award

dated 10.2.2004 (which is challenged in W.P.(C) No.12438/05) has

been passed, in the same however there is no adjudication on merits

which should have been there and instead reliance in sum and

substance is placed in the Award for arriving at the decision only on

the dismissal of the application under Section 33(2)(b). On the other

hand the order dated 24.12.2002 under Section 33(2)(b) which was to

grant or deny approval for termination though in law was required to

be passed deciding the issue whether the termination is on account of

victimization of the workman and not by adjudicating the merits on

detail, however, this is not so and which adjudication is de hors the

issue of victimization. Accordingly, in terms of the decision in the case

of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shyam Lal the impugned

Award dated 10.2.2004 is set aside for adjudication on merits and

disposal in accordance with law. The order dated 24.12.2002 is also

set aside and the application under Section 33 (2)(b) should be decided

in view of the parameters as set out in the decision in the case of

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shyam Lal.

3. The cases are therefore remanded back to the Labour

Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. It is desirable that

decision in both the cases is rendered by the same Labour

Court/Industrial Tribunal and the said Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal

will make every endeavour to dispose of the cases within a period of

six months from the date of the receipt of the present order. Learned

counsel for the petitioner states that this Court should direct decision

of the cases by the Labour Court. It is accordingly ordered that both

these cases will be decided by one Labour Court.

The petitions are accordingly disposed of.

C.M.No.9152/05 in W.P.(C) No.12438/05 C.M. No.1172/05 in W.P.(C) No.1502/05

Interim orders stand vacated.

Applications stand disposed of.

C.M. No.14066/08 in W.P.(C) No.1502/05

No orders are required to be passed in this application

which is disposed of as such.

W.P.(C) No.9301/2004

This petition is disposed of with the liberty to apply afresh

to this Court if there is a fresh Award against the management and in

favour of the workman/his legal heirs.

JANUARY 12, 2011                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne