Delhi Transport Corporation vs Satbir Singh
2013 Latest Caselaw 1695 Del

$~18 and 19
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      LPA Nos. 204/2013 and 207/2013

       DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION            ..... Appellant
                    Through: Mr Gaurav Verma and Mr Varun Dubey, Adv
                              for DTC

                     VERSUS
       SATBIR SINGH                                      ..... Respondent
                            Through:     None.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

                            ORDER

% 15.04.2013

1. The Respondent, a workman working with the appellant, having been dismissed from service, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. Vide award dated 07.03.2003, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent with 40% back wages from the date of reference. The management was accordingly directed to reinstate him accordingly along with consequential benefits.

2. On 11.11.2003, the respondent called upon the appellant to reinstate him in service and release arrears of back wages, etc. The appellant, however, did not comply with the award. Later on, arrears LPA Nos. 204/2013 and 207/2013 page 1 of 6 up to 07.03.2003 were paid to him, though he was not reinstated. The respondent came to be reinstated only vide order dated 29.03.2005. Since the appellant did not pay 100% back wages to the respondent from the date of the award, till 29.3.2005, he preferred LCA No. 263/2006. The Labour Court, vide award dated 08.07.2010, directed the appellant to pay 40% of back wages for the period from 08.03.2003 to 30.03.2005 to the respondent, along with interest on that amount at the rate of 09 % per annum with effect from 30.03.2005. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order of the Labour Court, the Respondent filed a writ petition, challenging the order of the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 14.01.2013, held that the respondent would be entitled to 100% back wages and allowances with effect from 3.08.2003 to 30.03.2005, along with interest on that amount at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 30.03.2005. Being aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.

3. Section 33(C) (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, to the extent it is relevant, provides that where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be

LPA Nos. 204/2013 and 207/2013 page 2 of 6 made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government, within a period not exceeding three months.

4. Vide award dated 07.03.2003, the Labour Court had directed reinstatement of the appellant with 40% back wages. The Labour Court had not fixed any particular time for implementation of the said award. In view of the provisions of Section 17 of Industrial Disputes Act, the award is required to be published by the appropriate Government within a period of 30 days from the date it is received by the said Government. Section 17A of the said Act, to the extent it is relevant, provides that an award shall become enforceable on the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication. Sub-section (4) of Section 17A, to the extent it is relevant for our purpose, provides that the award shall come into operation with effect from such date as may be specified therein, but, where no date is so specified, it shall come into operation from the date when it become enforceable under sub-section (1). Since the Labour Court had not fixed any particular date or time period for coming into operation of the award, it became enforceable and came into operation on expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the award. Admittedly, the Award was not implemented within that period and the respondent came to be reinstated only vide order dated 29.03.2005. The appellant, in our view, the cannot be allowed to postpone the reinstatement of the appellant in

LPA Nos. 204/2013 and 207/2013 page 3 of 6 contravention of the award of the Labour Court and then deny wages either wholly or partly to the workman for the period during which the award remained unimplemented after it had already come into force in terms of Section 17A of Industrial Disputes Act, taking a contrary view would encourage an unscrupulous employer to defer the implementation of the award of the Labour Court since he, in that case, has nothing to lose by postponing the implementation of the award.

5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the Labour Court had vide award dated 07.03.2003 directed payment of only 40% back wages, the respondent would be entitled only to 40% of the back wages for the period in question. We, however, do not agree with the contention. The award of the Labour Court restricting the back wages to 40%, was only for the period till the date by which the respondent was to be reinstated and not for the period post publication of the award. Therefore, in our view, an employer who does not reinstate a workman even on the award coming into force in terms of Section 17A of the Act, is required to pay full wages to the employee for the period he delayed implementation of the award. In taking this view, we find some support from the decision of Supreme Court in M.L. Bose and Co., Private Ltd, Calcutta v. Its Employees, AIR 1961 SC 1198. In that case, the respondents were dismissed from service. They challenged their dismissal from service and sought reinstatement.

The Industrial Tribunal decided in their favour and

LPA Nos. 204/2013 and 207/2013 page 4 of 6 directed their reinstatement. It also directed the appellant/employer to pay 1/3rd of the total emolument to them for the period from dismissal till reinstatement. The award of the Labour Court was challenged before Supreme Court and during the course of arguments, it was suggested on behalf of the employer that since the Labour Court had directed payment of 1/3rd of the total emoluments from the date of dismissal till reinstatement, similar payment should be ordered from the date of the award until the award of reinstatement. Supreme Court, however, declined to make such an order and directed that after the award became operative, the workmen were entitled to reinstatement by the appellant which had obtained an unconditional order for stay. It was further held that in such a case, there was no reason to deprive the workmen of their full wages from the date the award became operative till the date of their reinstatement. In fact the failure to implement the award renders the management/employer to prosecution in terms of Section 29 of Industrial Disputes Act.

Similar issue came up for consideration before Andhra Pradesh High Court in Govt. of A.P. rep. by Engineer-in-Chief, I and CAD, Major Irrigation and Anr. v. K. Basavaiah and Ors. 2009 (121) FLR653 and Addl. Industrial Tribunal- cum-Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad and Ors (2000) ILLJ 186 AP and M. Narasaiah vs. Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyd. And Ors. 2000(86) FLR 936 and it was held that in such a situation the employee is entitled to 100% for the wages for the period the award remained unimplemented.

LPA Nos. 204/2013 and 207/2013 page 5 of 6

6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

V.K. JAIN, J.

APRIL 15, 2013
BG




LPA Nos. 204/2013 and 207/2013                           page 6 of 6