Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Azad Singh & Ors. on 2 July, 2012
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 02.07.2012
+ W.P.(C) No.721/1998 & CM No.11589/2007
Delhi Transport Corporation ... Petitioner
versus
Azad Singh & Ors. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: None.
For Respondents : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
ANIL KUMAR, J.
No one is present on behalf of the parties.
The petitioner has sought a direction for quashing the impugned
award dated 17th October, 1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court-VII, respondent No.2, in I.D. No.90/93 and consequent thereto
quashing of noticed dated 28th November, 2011 for recovery of
Rs.75,000/-.
Secretary (Labour) Delhi Admn. Delhi referred the dispute "whether
Sh.Azad Singh, the petitioner himself abandoned his job or his service had
been terminated by the management illegally and/or unjustifiably and if
so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this
respect" by letter dated 2nd March, 1993.
The arbitrator on receiving the reference had issued notice to both
the parties and after hearing the parties and considering the pleas and
contentions and the evidences led before him, gave an award dated 17th
October, 1996 holding that it was not proved that Sh.Azad Singh himself
had abandoned his job and it has been established that his services were
terminated illegally by the Management, Delhi Transport Corporation. It
was held that termination was unjustified and therefore, the respondent,
Sh.Azad Singh is entitled for lump sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- from
the Management/petitioner.
The said award is challenged by the petitioner/Management inter-
alia on the grounds that impugned award treats the order of deemed
resignation as one of retrenchment; that binding effect of Clause 40 (10)
(c) could not be ignored by the Tribunal and because the grant of lump
sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- without ascertaining the cause of
absence or leave is unjustified and unwarranted.
The writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 17th
February, 1998 and in CM No.1233/1998 the operation and execution of
the impugned award was stayed.
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner had
deposited a sum of Rs.75,000/- in the Registry and the respondent was
allowed to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the said amount pursuant
to order dated 2nd December, 1999. The writ petition, thereafter was
dismissed in default for non-prosecution on 8th September, 2006.
Respondent No.1 had also expired on 16th June, 2005 and his legal
heirs were substituted in his place by order dated 14th January, 2008. The
Rule was issued in the writ petition on 16th August, 2000.
Later on, the matter was listed for hearing on 7th September, 2009,
however, no one appeared on behalf of the parties. The matter was again
listed on 23rd August, 2011 and none had appeared for the parties. No one
had again appeared on behalf of the parties on 15th December, 2011, 2nd
January, 2012, 5th March, 2012, 11th May, 2012 and 15th May, 2012.
Today, again no one is present on behalf of the parties. In the
circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the writ
petition in default for non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel.
Consequently, the writ petition is therefore, dismissed in default.
Interim order dated 17th February, 1998 is vacated pursuant to order
passed by this Court, Rs.75,000/- was deposited in this Court out of
which respondent No.1 was allowed to withdraw Rs.25,000/-. In the
circumstances, whatsoever amount deposited by the petitioner and
whatsoever amount which has accumulated on the said amount on
account of interest be released to the legal heirs of respondent No.1 who
were substituted by this Court in place of respondent No.1 by order dated
14th January, 2008.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
JULY 02, 2012
vk
