Delhi Transport Corporation vs Jagroop Singh
2014 Latest Caselaw 814 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                          Decided on February 12, 2014
+                        W.P.(C) 5100/2013


DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION                               ..... Petitioner

                    Represented by:   Ms.Manisha Tyagi, Advocate

                         versus

JAGROOP SINGH                                           ..... Respondent

                    Represented by:   Ms.Rashmi B. Singh, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)

1. The challenge in this writ petition by the Delhi Transport Corporation is to the award dated January 02, 2013 in I.D. No. 177/1998 whereby the Labour Court has held that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 45 of the 'Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995' [Act, in short] and also held that he would be entitled to full back wages for the period between May 15, 1991 to the actual date of his retirement, with continuity of service and consequential benefits and other retiremental benefits as per Rules applicable to the status and cadre of the workman, and further directed to pay a sum of ` 50,000/- to the respondent as exemplary cost. The amount was directed to be paid within two months with interested @ 9 % p.a.

2. The facts as noted from the impugned award are that the

respondent on October 07, 1990 during anti-reservation period, while going to join his duty at Wazirpur Depot, met with an accident. He was admitted in the Rohtak Medical College by some passengers. He regained his consciousness after 24 hours of the accident. He was advised complete rest for about three months. During the accident, his left feet little finger was damaged. He was advised to do some light job. He joined his duties on January 02, 1991 and did work till April 04, 1991. He was declared medically unfit by the Medical Board of the petitioner and accordingly, on May 15, 1991, he was prematurely retired from the petitioner-Corporation's service. The Medical College, Rohtak declared him fully fit and issued fitness certificate on July 29, 1991. He made a representation to the petitioner, who had asked his preference to perform duties of Peon and Store Attendant. It is noted that vide order dated December 17, 1991, his representation was rejected. He sent a demand notice on March 17, 1992. The same was not replied to. It was the case of the respondent that on January 20, 1992, the petitioner issued a circular for providing alternative jobs to medically disabled drivers and it was also mentioned in that circular that if any workman refuses to accept the alternative job, he may be retired prematurely.

3. He raised an industrial dispute challenging his illegal retirement on March 23, 1992 before a Conciliation Officer.

4. It was the case of the petitioner-Corporation that the reference made is very late and hence, the respondent is not entitled to any relief. The Labour Court framed the issue No. 1 as Whether Sh. Jagroop Singh S/o Sh. Surat Singh has been retired from the services illegally and/or

unjustifiably by the management and the second issue being, what relief he is entitled to.

5. The petitioner produced Mr. S.K.Gupta, Depot Manager of Wazirpur Depot. Based on the deposition of Mr. S.K.Gupta, the Labour Court was of the view that no document has been produced by the petitioner-Corporation showing that the respondent was given an alternative job.

6. The Labour Court finally held the retirement of the respondent as illegal and unjustifiable.

7. On the issue of relief, the respondent relied upon the provisions of Section 47 of the Act. The argument that was advanced by the petitioner- Corporation was that the Act came into force only on February 07, 1996 and the same cannot be given a retrospective effect. Reliance was placed by the Labour Court on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported as 2009 II LLJ 475 (Del), Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Harpal Singh. The Labour Court, relying upon the judgment referred above, has held that the respondent having compulsorily retired on May 15, 1991 and when the Act came into force, the present case is pending for adjudication, hence, the respondent was entitled to the benefit of Section 47 of the Act. It may be relevant to state here that the respondent had attained the age of superannuation in the year 2008.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Ms. Manisha Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the

respondent is not entitled to any relief as the reference was made in the year 2004 after almost 13 years from the date when the respondent had met with an accident.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that this is unfortunate case where despite being a policy, the petitioner had denied the benefit of an alternative employment to the respondent and have illegally retired him on May 15, 1991. She would support the conclusion of the Labour Court wherein the Labour Court relied upon the Judgment of this Court in DTC Vs. Harpal Singh's case (supra). According to her, the proceedings being pending, the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the Act. She relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Narender Kumar Chandla Vs. State of Haryana and Others, Civil Appeal No. 874 of 1994 decided on February 04, 1994, Kumar Bharat Prasand Narayan Singh vs. Airports Authority of India 120(2005) DLT 545, DTC vs. Harpal Singh (2009) 2 LLJ 475, Delhi Development Authority vs. Omvati Kalshan (2008) 2 LLJ 407, Baljeet Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 83 (2000) DLT 286, Din Dayal vs. DTC 131 (2006) DLT 641.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, insofar as the issue of delay raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, suffice to note certain facts: pursuant to his pre-mature retirement on May 15, 1991, the respondent sent a demand notice dated March 17, 1992; the petitioner did not send reply to the same; the respondent raised the industrial dispute on March 23, 1992 before the Conciliation Officer; the petitioner replied to the claim petition on June 15, 1993.

11. The Government of NCT vide its order dated December 31, 1993 refused to make a reference of the industrial dispute for the adjudication of the Labour Court. This action of the Government of NCT was challenged by the respondent before this Court by filing a writ petition No.1563/1994 which was allowed by this Court on September 21, 2004. Pursuant thereto, reference was made by the government for the adjudication of the Labour Court. During the submissions, it was stated that the respondent did not file the claim petition. Subsequently he was allowed to file the claim petition and thereafter the matter was adjudicated by the Labour Court, which culminated in the impugned order. From these facts, it is revealed that the respondent was pursuing his remedy against pre-mature retirement diligently.

12. Insofar as the applicability of the Act in the case of respondent who was pre-maturely retired for medical reasons is covered in Harpal Singh's case (supra) and Omvati Kalshan's case (supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the applicability of these judgments in the facts of this case.

13. In Harpal Singh's case (supra), this Court has held as under:

"In these circumstances, while holding that the provisions of Section 47 of the Act cannot be given retrospective operation but in a pending proceedings, the benefit of the provisions can certainly be extended. This is also the mandate of Article 41 of the Constitution of India. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge or the award given by the Labour Court."

14. The proceedings being pending, the benefits of the provisions of the Act shall be applicable to the respondent.

15. I agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

FEBRUARY 12, 2014 akb