Delhi High Court
Virender Singh vs M/S Lancer Convent Senior ... on 3 December, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on 3rd December, 2014
+ W.P.(C) No. 8497/2014
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Arun K. Yadav, Advocate.
Versus
M/S LANCER CONVENT SENIOR SECONDARY
SCHOOL ..... Respondent
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM No.19649/2014 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
W.P.(C) 8497/2014
1. The present petition is directed against the award dated 09.05.2014,
whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of
Rs.75,000/- in favour of the petitioner/workman in lieu of reinstatement,
back wages and other benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that he was
appointed on the post of 'Driver' in July, 2002, on a monthly salary of
Rs.8281/-. The respondent / Management was not providing legal
facilities according to labour laws, therefore, he was demanding
the said facilities but as the said demands were not fulfilled, hence, the
petitioner filed a case for general demand before the Labour
Department, which is pending. The respondent/Management was
pressurizing the petitioner to take back the aforementioned case. The
petitioner did not agree thereto, therefore, the respondent/Management
terminated the petitioner/workman from the service with effect from
24.03.2008.
3. Mr.Arun Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner/workman submits that the petitioner was not even provided
inquiry report for six months. On 20.06.2008, when the petitioner reached
to the respondent/Management for duty, he was not allowed to join duty and
even legal dues were not paid to him.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal after
examining the action taken by the respondent/ Management and the
evidence on record, held that the action taken against the
petitioner/workman was illegal. Accordingly, the removal of service was
held to be improper and illegal. Despite, the learned Tribunal has not
directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service. However, granted a
lump-sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of reinstatement, back wages
and other benefits.
5. On perusal of the impugned award, it is revealed that on 24.09.2007,
the petitioner/workman was challaned under Section 184 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, by the Delhi Traffic Police, while he was driving Bus
No.DL 1P-5256 carrying the students. Pursuant thereto, the
petitioner/workman was served with a show-cause notice dated 05.10.2007,
asking as to why disciplinary action should not have been taken against him.
On finding reply unsatisfactory, a departmental inquiry was initiated against
him by the respondent/Management. The Inquiry Officer vide his report
dated 06.04.2008 held the petitioner/workman guilty of the charges levelled
against him.
6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the
learned Tribunal vide its order dated 23.01.2009:-
"1. Whether the workman had been working with the
management regularly since 02.01.02 at the post of driver
drawing his last wages @ Rs.8281/- per month?
2. Whether the present claim filed directly by the
workman before this court is not maintainable in view of the
preliminary objection no.2 of the written statement of the
management?
3. Whether the services of the workman had been terminated
illegally and/ or unjustifiably by the management?
4. Relief."
Vide order dated 03.08.2010, as requested, the following issue was
also framed:
" Whether the enquiry has been conducted in a fair and
legal manner following the principles of natural justice?"
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/workman has raised the issue that
the learned Tribunal has granted very meagre compensation, i.e.,
Rs.75,000/-, however, the petitioner has served the respondent/Management
for more than six years, therefore, the amount of compensation should have
been more.
8. To support the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner
has cited inter alia some cases. In one of the case bearing W.P.(C)
No.6280/2011, employee Raj Bal, who was employed as an 'Aaya', was
paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards arrears of back wages and orders
under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short 'ID Act')
and subsequently, settled the matter for Rs.4,50,000/-. Thus, the
aforenamed Raj Bala got Rs.7,00,000/-. Similarly, in case bearing W.P.(C)
No. 6278/2011, Management paid about Rs.3,00,000/- towards arrears of
back wages and orders under Section 17-B ID Act to Bhagat Singh, who
was Driver and subsequently, settled the case for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/.
Thus, the said workman received Rs.7,50,000/-.
9. In the aforementioned cases, it seems that the learned Tribunal had
directed reinstatement with back wages; therefore, the workmen might have
received the higher amount in settlement. The facts of the present case are
different from the cases mentioned above, therefore, have no bearing.
10. Though, it is trite that when the action of the respondent/Management
is held illegal and improper, then, the learned Tribunal ought to have granted
reinstatement of the petitioner/workman with full back wages. But the fact is
that each and every case has to be considered on its own merits, as each case
is unique
11. Undisputedly, all the aforementioned issues were decided in favour of
the petitioner/workman, however, keeping in view the guideline
3(iv) issued by the Delhi Government dated 18.11.2005, the learned
Tribunal did not consider him fit for reinstatement. The same reads as
under:-
"The driver should not have been challaned or charged with
the offence of over speeding, drunken driving, driving
dangerously, rash driving or riding on a public way, causing
hurt or grievous hurt by an act of endangering life or personal
safety or other culpable homicide or the IPC."
12. The aforesaid guideline has been taken by the Government from the
judgment of Supreme Court passed in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of
India & Ors., (1998), 1 SCC 676, wherein it is categorically held that no
driver can be allowed to drive bus even if he has been challaned or charged
for offence of over speeding once, which the petitioner/workman has done
in this case.
13. In the present case, while exercising powers enshrined under Section
11-A ID Act and keeping in view the period of removal from service; the
notification issued by the Delhi Government; the dictum of the Apex Court
in M.C. Mehta (supra), the learned Tribunal has not directed the
respondent/Management to reinstate the petitioner/workman in service.
However, granted a lump sum amount of Rs.75,000/- as compensation in
lieu of reinstatement, back wages and other benefits.
14. In view of the above discussion, I find no discrepancy in the order
dated 09.05.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal.
15. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in limine.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 03, 2014/sb
