D.T.C. vs Jai Bhagwan
2011 Latest Caselaw 2475 Del

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 2475 Del
Judgement Date : 9 May, 2011

Delhi High Court

D.T.C. vs Jai Bhagwan on 9 May, 2011

Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Date of decision: 9th May, 2011

+                           W.P.(C) 17138/2004

%        D.T.C.                                                ..... Petitioner
                            Through:      Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Adv.

                                   Versus

         JAI BHAGWAN                                        ..... Respondent
                            Through:      Mr. G.S. Charya, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may               No
         be allowed to see the judgment?

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.

CM No.12705/2004 (for stay)

1. The interim order dated 9th February, 2005 staying the operation and

implementation of the award dated 7 th February, 2003 of the Industrial

Adjudicator impugned in this writ petition is made absolute till the

decision of the writ petition.

CM No.15814/2006 (of the respondent workman u/S 17B of the I.D. Act)

2. The counsel for the respondent workman points out that in the order

dated 3rd March, 2011, the application has been erroneously shown as of

the year 2010 while it is of the year 2006.

3. The writ petition impugns the award of the Industrial Adjudicator

directing the petitioner DTC to reinstate the respondent workman with full

back wages. As aforesaid, there is an interim order of stay of operation

and implementation of the award. The respondent workman in his

application supported by affidavit has stated that he is unemployed. The

necessary ingredients of Section 17B are satisfied. The petitioner DTC in

its reply has been unable to state that the respondent workman is employed

anywhere.

4. The application was filed within a year of service of the notice of the

writ petition.

5. Accordingly, the application is allowed with following directions:

(i) the respondent workman to within two weeks of today file an

affidavit in this Court undertaking to this Court to in the event of the

writ petition succeeding, pay/refund to the petitioner DTC the excess

amount over and above last drawn wages, if any received under

order of this Court.

(ii) Subject to the filing of the affidavit aforesaid, the petitioner

DTC to within eight weeks of today pay to the respondent workman

the arrears of 17B wages at the rate of last drawn wages/minimum

wages whichever is higher from the date of the award i.e. 7th

February, 2003 till 30th April, 2011, failing which besides other

remedies of the respondent workman, the petitioner shall incur

interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum.

(iii) the petitioner DTC to with effect from the month of May,

2011 pay to the respondent workman the 17B wages at the rate

aforesaid month by month and by the 15th day of the succeeding

month, failing which as aforesaid, the same shall incur interest at the

rate of 10% per annum.

The application is disposed of.

W.P.(c) No.17138/2004

6. The counsels for the parties have also been heard on the writ

petition.

7. The writ petition impugns the award dated 7 th February, 2003 of the

Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:

"Whether the punishment imposed upon Sh. Jai Bhagwan by the management vide its orders dt. 21-4-1993 is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

8. The services of the respondent workman as a Conductor with the

petitioner DTC were terminated for the reason of 80 days' absence without

leave. Even though the respondent workman was ex parte before the

Industrial Adjudicator, the Industrial Adjudicator on the admission of the

witnesses of the petitioner DTC that leave without pay was not misconduct

under the Rules & Regulations of DTC, held the order of termination to be

bad and directed reinstatement.

9. Both counsels state that the present case is covered by the judgment

of the Apex Court in DTC Vs. Sardar Singh (2004) 7 SCC 574. They

further agree that the award impugned in this writ petition, in view of the

said judgment, is liable to be set aside.

10. I have perused the records; the matter is found to be covered by the