Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar vs M/S Dtc on 8 December, 2016
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 08th December, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 4975/2011
VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kishore Kumar Patel, Adv.
versus
M/S DTC ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan and Mr.
Ataur Rahman, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court
whereby the learned Labour Court has awarded compensation of
Rs.40,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case is
squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in
DTC v. Ran Singh, (2012) 135 FLR 55 in which the Division Bench
following the order dated 25th April, 2006 passed by the Supreme
Court in batch of appeals titled DTC v. Prakash Chand Civil Appeal
Nos.7110-7111/2004, awarded reinstatement without back wages to
the similarly situated workmen. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits, on instructions from the petitioner present in Court, that the
petitioner be granted similar relief.
3. In DTC v. Ran Singh (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court
awarded reinstatement without back wages to the similarly situated
workmen. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced
hereunder:-
"4. After hearing the counsels for the parties, we are
of the opinion that the present case which is
identically situated requires the same treatment. It is
a matter of record that the respondent workman had
remained absent from 14.08.1986 to 24.03.1987 when
provisions of Clause 14(10)(b) of the DRTA
Regulations were invoked. Before invoking the
aforesaid provision, notice was sent to the respondent
workman asking him to join the duties but he failed to
do so. Though the respondent workman is reinstated
in service but only on technical ground that such
provision should not have been invoked. Having
regard to this fact and going by the spirit of orders
passed by the Supreme Court in DTC Vs. Prakash
Chand, we are of the opinion that in the instant case
as well, the respondent workman is not entitled to any
back wages. The order of the learned Single Judge as
well as the impugned award passed by the Labour
Court is modified to this extent.
5. Some amount towards back wages was recovered
by the respondent workman in the execution
proceedings in the year 2002, before the writ petition
was filed. That amount shall not be recovered from
the respondent workman by the appellant.
6. It is further made clear that the respondent
workman shall be given the regular wages with effect
from 10.07.2009 since when he joined back the
services. As per the award, the intervening period has
to be counted for the purpose of retiral/pensionary
benefits. We make it clear that since continuity in
service has been granted and we have only denied the
arrears of back wages, the pay of the respondent
workman w.e.f. joining on 10.07.2009 is to be as if
there was no termination i.e. by granting him the
benefits of increments / pay revision etc. The pay of
the respondent workman shall be so fixed and arrears
of salary with effect from 10.07.2009 shall be paid
accordingly within a period of four weeks from today.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent."
4. This case is squarely covered by DTC v. Ran Singh (Supra).
Following the Division Bench Judgment, the writ petition is allowed
and the petitioner is granted reinstatement without back wages. The
petitioner shall be entitled to regular wages w.e.f. joining back the
services. The intervening period be counted for the purpose of
retiral/pensionary benefits. The pay of the petitioner shall be fixed as
if there was no termination i.e. by granting him the benefits of
increments/pay revision. The DTC shall award all benefits which were
granted to the workmen in DTC v. Ran Singh (Supra).
5. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsels for
the parties under signature of Court Master.
DECEMBER 08, 2016 J.R. MIDHA, J.
ak
