Delhi High Court
Shukhbir Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 21 March, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 19.03.2013
Judgment pronounced on: 21.03.2013
+ LPA 768/2012 & CM 19674/2012(delay in filing)
DTC ..... Appellant
Through : Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with
Ms. Latika Choudhary and
Mr. Vaibhav Misra, Advs.
versus
SUKHBIR SINGH
..... Respondent
Through : Mr. H.K.Chaturvedi, Ms. Anjali
Chaturvedi, Mr. Ajit Kumar Jain
and Mr. C.M.Verma, Advs.
+ LPA 774/2012 & CM 19822/2012(delay in filing)
SHUKHBIR SINGH
..... Appellant
Through : Mr. H.K.Chaturvedi, Ms. Anjali
Chaturvedi, Mr. Ajit Kumar Jain
and Mr. C.M.Verma, Advs.
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with
Ms. Latika Choudhary and
Mr. Vaibhav Misra, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
LPA Nos. 768/2012 and 774/2012 Page 1 of 5
V.K. JAIN, J.
CM Nos. 19674/2012 (delay in filing) in LPA 768/2012 and CM
19822/2012(delay in filing) in LPA 774/2012
For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in filing the
appeals is condoned.
The applications stand disposed of.
LPA 768/2012 and LPA 774/2012
1. The respondent, who was working as a driver with DTC on daily
wage basis, was served with a chargesheet on 18.11.1994 on the
following allegations:-
"That the driver/ workman was duty on bus
no.9766 route no.118 on dated 20.09.1994 and
when it reached at More Gate at 9.30 am and the
time keeper asked the driver/ workman to perform
the trip on route no.324 at 9.35 am to Mayur Vihar
Phase-I and the workman forced the time keeper to
record the time at 10.00 am but the time keeper did
not do so; then the workman abused and
manhandled him and also recorded a complaint of
starting trouble in the bus and went away. When
the bus was checked by the checking staff at about
11.00 am, the workman was not found in the bus
and he came at 11.30 am and after that he was
taken the bus to the Noida Depot."
2. In the inquiry conducted against the respondent, he was held guilty
and consequently he was removed from service of the appellant vide
order dated 26.10.1995. On a dispute being raised by the respondent with
respect to his removal from service, a reference was made to the Labour
Court for adjudication. Vide order dated 19.05.2009, the Labour Court
held as under:-
"17. Hence with the available material permitted
under section 11-A of the I.D. Act, I am to hold
that the entire charges are not proved in total. The
first charge of intentionally delaying the bus to go
on route no.324 is with a false excuse of starting
trouble falls to the ground. Under the above
circumstances, I find that the order of removal
passed against the workman is not justified."
3. The Labour Court, while directing reinstatement of the respondent
and payment of a sum of Rs 30,000/- as litigation expenses to him, did
not grant any back wages. Being aggrieved from the award, to the extent
he was refused back wages, the respondent filed W.P(C) No. 823/2010.
The learned Single Judge vide order dated 08.08.2012 disposed of the
writ petition with the following operating order:
"10. The line of decisions on the point are that the
criteria for granting back wages are the length of
service, whether the appointment was in
consonance with the statutory rules, whether there
existed any vacancy etc. Applying the criteria to
the facts of the present case that the Petitioner was
working as a driver on regular basis, had put in
nearly 7 years of service when he was terminated
but since there has been a delay of the trial on
account of the Petitioner's conduct and the fact
that the Petitioner has only stated that he was
unemployed and has not even averred that he made
efforts for finding alternative employment during
this period while balancing the various
circumstances, I deem it fit to modify the
impugned award dated 19th May, 2009 to the
extent that the Petitioner is entitled to 50% back
wages. Ordered accordingly."
4. LPA No. 768/2012 has been filed by DTC, to the extent the learned
Single Judge granted 50% back wages to the workman. LPA No.
774/2012 has been filed by the workman Sukhbir Singh to the extent back
wages were restricted to 50%.
5. The allegations against the workman can be divided into the
following three charges: (i) he forced the Time Keeper to record the time
as 10.00 A.M. though actually the time was 09.35 A.M. when the bus
reached Mori Gate; (ii) he abused and manhandled the Time Keeper; (iii)
he was found absent from the bus between 11.00 A.M. to 11.30 A.M..
The Labour Court returned a finding in favour of the workman as far as
the first charge is concerned. However, no finding was rendered with
respect to second and third charges, as dissected by us. There was no
finding as to whether the workman had abused and manhandled the Time
Keeper or not. Similarly, there was no finding as to whether the
workman was found absent from the bus between 11.00 A.M. to 11.30
A.M. or not. Thus, when the Labour Court held that entire charges were
not proved in total, it, while holding that only the first charge was proved,
did not return a finding on the other allegations against the workman.
6. In our view, the Labour Court was required to record specific
finding also with respect to the second and third charges, as dissected by
us since the question whether the workman would be entitled to back
wages and if so, to what extent would depend upon the finding of the
Labour Court on all the three charges. We, therefore, set aside the order
passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order by the Labour
Court and remit the matter back to the Labour Court for giving finding on
second and third charges, as dissected by us, within a period of four
weeks of the receipt of this order.
Both the appeals stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.
V.K.JAIN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
MARCH 21, 2013
bg
