Delhi High Court
Jamil Ahmed vs Dtc & Anr on 14 November, 2019
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision :- 14.11.2019
+ W.P.(C) 5805/1998
JAMIL AHMED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Parmod Kr. with Mr.Amod Kr.,
Advs.
versus
DTC & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Manisha Tyagi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition filed by the workman seeks to assail
the award dated 15.04.1997 insofar as it directs the respondent to
deduct Rs.1500/- per month from the wages payable to the petitioner
from the date of his dismissal on 24.03.1988. Under the impugned
award, the learned Labour Court held that despite the pendency of
Industrial Dispute No.17/88 between the parties, the
respondent/management did not prefer an approval application under
Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act before dismissing the
petitioner from service on 24.03.1988 which rendered his dismissal
void. Consequently the petitioner was held as being entitled to full
WP (C) No.5805/1998 Page 1 of 4
backwages with all consequential benefits and continuity of service.
However, in view of the statement made by the petitioner during his
cross-examination that he was earning a sum of Rs.900/- to Rs.1500/-
per month, the Labour Court directed that a sum of Rs.1,500/- per
month may be deducted from the total sum of backwages payable to
the petitioner.
2. At this stage, it may be noted that the respondent's challenge to
the award has already been negated by this Court and, therefore,
insofar as the respondent is concerned, the award has attained finality.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Labour Court has, without any basis, directed a deduction of
Rs.1,500/- per month from the backwages payable to the petitioner
without appreciating the fact that the petitioner in his cross-
examination on 22.11.1994 before the Labour Court truthfully stated
that he was performing odd jobs from time to time and was
sporadically earning amounts ranging between Rs.900/- to Rs.1,500/-
per month. He thus, contends that the direction of the Labour Court to
deduct an amount of Rs.1,500/- from the petitioner's monthly salary
was wholly perverse and contrary to the record.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits
that once the petitioner admitted that he was at times earning
Rs.1,500/- per month, the Labour Court cannot be faulted for directing
the said deduction to be made as the amount which was regularly
being earned by the petitioner had to be necessarily deducted from the
backwages awarded to him. She therefore, prays that the writ petition
be dismissed.
WP (C) No.5805/1998 Page 2 of 4
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and with their assistance perused the record.
6. Since the entire case hinges on the alleged admission made by
the petitioner in his cross-examination, a reference to the said cross-
examination may be made at the outset:-
"I have got six children. I am doing private job and
earning Rs.1000/- to Rs.l500/-p.m. whenever the job is
available. Sometimes my earning is Rs.900/- in a month
and sometimes is Rs.1000/- and sometimes is Rs.1200/-
p.m."
7. A perusal of the aforesaid statement shows that the petitioner
had categorically stated that he was performing private jobs to take
care of his six dependent children, but there is nothing to show that
the petitioner ever admitted that he was earning at least Rs.1,500/- per
month, as has been presumed by the learned Labour Court. The
petitioner's stand before the Court in fact, was that he was
occasionally earning Rs.900/- and Rs.1,000/- but sometimes he was
earning Rs.1,200/- or Rs.1,500/-. I, therefore, find merit in the
petitioner's submission that the direction to deduct Rs.1,500/- per
month from the wages payable to the petitioner was unjustified and
cannot be sustained. It is, however, evident that as per his own
statement, the petitioner was earning at least a sum of Rs.900/- per
month and sometimes even higher amounts. In these circumstances,
the interest of justice demands that only a sum of Rs.1,000/- per
month be deducted from the backwages payable to the petitioner in
terms of the impugned award.
WP (C) No.5805/1998 Page 3 of 4
8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of by
modifying the impugned award to the extent that the amount as
directed to be deducted from the arrears of monthly wages payable to
the petitioner would be treated as Rs.1,000/-, and not Rs.1,500/-, as
directed under the impugned Award. The arrears in terms of this order
will be released to the petitioner within twelve weeks.
REKHA PALLI, J.
NOVEMBER 14, 2019
gm
