D.T.C. vs Pritam Lal
2015 Latest Caselaw 3144 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                        W.P.(C) 8468/2007
                                  Judgment reserved on: 16.04.2015
                                  Judgment pronounced on: 20.04.2015

      D.T.C.                                            ..... Petitioner
                         Through:      Mr.Sumit Chander and Mr.Siddhartha
                                       Nagpal, Advocates with Mr.Vikram
                                       Singh, Conductor
                         versus

      PRITAM LAL                                       ..... Respondent
                         Through:      Mr.H.K.Chaturvedi, Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

      JUDGMENT

1. In this case the petitioner has challenged the order of the industrial

tribunal dated 11.11.1998. Vide this order the tribunal had permitted the

petitioner to withdraw its approval application and dismiss the same as being

withdrawn.

2. The brief facts of this case are that the respondent was employed as a

Driver and a chargesheet was issued on 16.02.1993 on account of his alleged

unauthorised absence from 03.03.1992 to 10.02.1993 and also of his alleged

total absence for 461 days. A detailed enquiry was conducted. On

12.07.1993, on the basis of enquiry report a show cause notice was issued

proposing the punishment of removal from service. Vide order dated

22.07.1994, the respondent was dismissed from service and he was allegedly

paid one month notice pay. An application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the

Industrial Tribunal Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D.Act') being

O.P.No.166 of 1994 was filed before the industrial tribunal. During the

pendency of the said approval application the workman had also raised an

industrial dispute bearing I.D.No.186/1995 before the labour court on a

reference from the appropriate government dated 18.07.1995. On

09.06.1998, the labour court passed an ex-parte award. Thereafter on

02.10.1999 in execution proceedings of the industrial dispute award the

accounts of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.1,54,172/- were attached.

3. The impugned order dated 11.11.1998 has been assailed on several

grounds on merit including that the action of the petitioner was not tested on

merit and the court had failed to appreciate that allowing the LCA

application would tantamount to settling the wrong law especially in light of

findings of the fact in favour of the management in LCA 91/2006. It is

submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It

is further contended that it will unnecessarily burden the petitioner which is

a public funded transport utility service provider and would adversely affect

the financial health of the petitioner. It is prayed that the impugned order

dated 11.11.1998 passed in O.P.166/1994 be set aside.

4. The claim is contested by the respondent/workman. At the outset, it is

submitted that the present petition is barred by law of delay and latches as

the petition has been filed after nine years from passing of the award dated

09.06.1998 in I.D.No.186/1995. It is further contended that the present writ

petition is not maintainable since the impugned order does suffer with any

illegality.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and

perused the record.

6. From the perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that during the

proceedings on that day i.e. 11.11.1998 an order of the labour court in

I.D.No.186/1995 dated 09.06.1998 was put up before the court whereby the

order of removal of the workman from service, pertaining to which the

petitioner had sought the approval in the said court by way of an application

under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D. Act, had been set aside and the workman

was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages. When this fact was

asserted before the court, Mr.V.K.Kalra appearing on behalf of the

petitioner/D.T.C. Certain submissions noted in order are as under:

"In view of this development Mr.Kalra states that in case assurance is given on behalf of the respondent that no proceedings will be initiated against DTC, he is ready to withdraw this approval application, which in any case appears to have been infructuous. Mr.Yadav states that since the workman has been ordered to be reinstated there is no question of now his taking any proceedings against the management in case this approval application is withdrawn and which, as rightly submitted by counsel for DTC, has become infructuous also and further that even if the said award is set aside in appeal, if it is filed, the respondent would still not take any action against the management."

7. Subsequent to that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner/D.T.C. also made a submission before the court which was

recorded by the court as under:

"In view of this assurance of the respondent, Mr.Kalra states that this approval application may be dismissed as withdrawn."

8. It is in view of these submissions made by the counsel for the

petitioner before the labour court that it passed the order of dismissing the

application as withdrawn. The labour court passed the following order:

"Accordingly, this application of the DTC is dismissed as withdrawn. The respondent will be bound by the undertaking of his AR given today, as aforesaid."

9. It, therefore, is clear that in the present case the approval application

under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D.Act registered as O.P.No.166/1994 was

dismissed for the reasons that it was withdrawn by the petitioner.

10. No order on merit was passed. No illegality in order of permitting

petitioner to withdraw its case.

11. The present petition is an utterly frivolous petition. Hence, while

dismissing the same, a cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the petitioner to be

deposited in the Delhi High Court Employees Welfare Fund.

12. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE) APRIL 20, 2015 rb