Delhi High Court
Ram Niwas vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 1 February, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 768/2010 & CM No.1589/2013 (for release of amount of
Rs.84,864/- to workman)
RAM NIWAS ...... Appellant
Through : Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION .... Respondent
Through : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 01.02.2013
The services of the appellant before us were terminated by the
respondent on 24.5.1985. The appellant raised industrial dispute which was
referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Vide order dated
1.12.1994, the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement of
the appellant with continuity in service, but declined back-wages. The case
of the appellant is that immediately on passing of the award, he approached
the respondent on 1.12.1994 to join back on his duty, but he was not allowed
to join the duties upto 12.8.1996. The appellant preferred a petition under
Section 33(C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking directions to the
respondent to release payment of wages for the period from 1.12.1994 to
12.6.1996. Vide order dated 7.12.2005, the Labour Court held that the
appellant was entitled to wages for the period from 1.12.1994 to 12.8.1996.
The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent by way of W.P.(C)
No.3765/2007. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated
7.9.2010, remitted the matter back to the Labour Court with direction to
allow the management to produce evidence on the question as to whether the
appellant had reported for duty on 1.12.1994 or not. Since the respondent
also pleaded a settlement dated 7.8.1986 with the appellant whereby he gave
him claim for the period prior to his joining to service, the learned Single
Judge also directed adjudication of that plea of the appellant after giving
opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence in support of its case. Being
dissatisfied with the order of learned Single Judge, the appellant is before us
by way of this appeal.
2. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent before the Labour Court
would show that a specific plea was taken by the respondent in the reply that
after passing of the award, the appellant did not report for duty for a long
time and, therefore, he was not entitled to salary for the period from
1.12.1994 to 12.8.1996, the date he actually reported on duty. It was further
stated in the reply that the appellant entered into an agreement dated
7.8.1996 with the respondent whereby he relinquished the demand raised by
him. A perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court on 7.12.2005 would
show that since the respondent did not examine any witness, as regards the
averments made by it, the Labour Court held that there was no settlement
between the parties on 7.8.1996. In the absence of evidence from the
respondent, the Labour Court also accepted the plea of the appellant that he
had reported for duty on 1.12.1994.
3. As noted by the learned Single Judge, the Labour Court vide order
dated 2.2.2005 closed the evidence of the respondent and did not allow it to
lead evidence in support of the case set up by it. It further shows that an
application filed by the respondent for leading evidence was also dismissed
by the Labour Court on 7.12.2005. The learned Single Judge noted the
conflicting stand taken by the parties as to whether the appellant had
reported for duty on 1.12.1991 or not. She also noted that a copy of the
settlement dated 7.8.1996 was on record and the said settlement purported to
be signed by the respondent as well as on behalf of the Workers' Union and
two witnesses. It was in these circumstances that the learned Single Judge
remanded the matter back to the Labour Court to give fresh finding after
giving opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence in this regard.
4. Considering the fact the no opportunity was given to the respondent to
lead evidence despite an application having been filed seeking such an
opportunity, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in
granting an opportunity to the respondent to adduce evidence in this regard.
As regards the settlement dated 7.8.1996, the learned counsel for the
appellant, during the course of arguments before us, did not dispute the
execution of the said document but claimed that it was illegal. We note that
execution of the settlement dated 7.8.1996 was disputed by the appellant
before the Labour Court, as would be evidenced from paragraph 11 of the
order passed by the said Court observing that in his cross examination, the
appellant had denied having entered into any agreement for relinquishment
of all his backwages from 1.12.1994 till date of joining. Therefore, no fault
can be found with the impugned order permitting the respondent to lead
evidence in this regard.
5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merits in the appeal.
The appeal as well as the accompanying application are dismissed. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.
The Labour Court, to which the matter has been remanded back by
the learned Single Judge is directed to decide the matter afresh, within three
months of the appellant appearing before it along with copy of this order.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J
FEBRUARY 01, 2013
rd
