Delhi High Court
University Of Delhi vs Praveen Kumar Tayal & Anr. on 7 August, 2012
Author: A.K.Sikri
$-46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No.298 of 2012
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI . . . Appellant
through : Mr. Rajinder Dhawan,
Advocate.
VERSUS
PRAVEEN KUMAR TAYAL & ANR. . . .Respondents
through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 07.08.2012
CM No.6889/2012 (Delay)
For the reasons stated in this application, we condone the
delay in filing the appeal.
CM stands disposed of.
LPA No.298/2012
1. The services of the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred
to as 'workman') were terminated and challenging which
industrial dispute was raised, award dated 19.4.2002 was
rendered holding that the termination was bad in law with a
direction that the workman be reinstated with full backwages.
2. Challenging that award, the appellant has filed Writ Petition
(C) No.906 of 2003, which is pending in this Court. Rule has
been issued in writ petition. The workman filed an application
under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity
'I.D. Act'), which was allowed. However thereafter, the
appellant filed application seeking permission to utilize services
of the workman in the meantime, which prayer was granted.
The workman resumed his duty pursuant thereto. However,
according to the appellant, while working with the appellant,
the respondent misappropriated some money. Inquiry was
held against him and the charge was proved.
3. In this backdrop, the appellant moved another application, viz.,
CM No.885/2008 before the learned Single Judge seeking
liberty to terminate the services of the workman because of his
having committed acts of misappropriation of the
management's money on the basis of inquiry. In this
application, impugned order dated 16.1.2012 is passed
directing the workman to stop working with the appellant and
also directing the appellant to pay him wages under Section
17B of the ID Act, as per its earlier order. The grievance of the
appellant is that once the charge was established and the
liberty was sought to terminate the services of the workman,
the learned Single Judge should have addressed that issue,
instead the order which is passed is that the workman should
stop working and get wages.
4. Now, the question which arises is that if the workman is
reinstated in the services not pursuant to the award of the
Labour Court, but pursuant to order under Section 17B of the
ID Act and commits some misconduct on the basis of which the
management terminates the services, whether in such
circumstance workman would still be entitled to wages under
Section 17B of the ID Act or not.
5. Admit.
CM No.6890/2012 (Stay)
6. The impugned order passed by the learned Singe Judge is
stayed, subject to the appellant depositing amount from the
date of order passed by the learned Single Judge as per
Section 17B of the ID Act in the Court. However, since the writ
petition is of the year 2003, we request the learned Single
Judge to decide writ petition expeditiously.
W.P. (C) No.906/2003 shall be listed before the learned Single
Judge for directions on 16th August, 2012 when the learned
Single Judge can fix the date of hearing as per its convenience.
7. CM stands disposed of.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
AUGUST 07, 2012
pmc
