Delhi Transport Corporation vs Gurucharan Singh
2020 Latest Caselaw 200 Del

$~
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                             Date of Decision:- 14.01.2020
+    W.P.(C) 8762/2016
     DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION             ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr.Sarfaraz Khan, Adv.
                       versus
     GURUCHARAN SINGH                                ..... Respondent

                 Through:           Mr.G.S. Charya, Adv.
     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

     REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

     1.    The    present writ petition filed by the Delhi Transport

Corporation assails the order dated 30.04.2016 passed by the learned Labour Court-XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereunder the two applications filed by the respondent under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 being LCA Nos. 121/16 and 861/16 were allowed. Under the impugned order, the Labour Court after holding that the respondent was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.15,37,979/- toward his unpaid wages and had already received a sum of Rs.10,07,660/-, has directed the petitioner to pay him the differential sum of Rs.5,30,319/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

2. The brief facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent who was working as a Driver with the petitioner since 30.08.1982 was terminated from service on 27.08.1983 on account of his involvement in a road accident. Aggrieved by his termination, the

respondent raised an industrial dispute which came to be decided in this favour vide award dated 10.08.1994. Under the said award, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and with 30% backwages for the period between the date of reference i.e. 02.03.1989 and the date of his reinstatement. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1722/1998, which came to be rejected on 24.09.2004, whereafter the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the same by way of LPA No.448/2005. After the dismissal of the aforesaid LPA on 21.02.2005, the petitioner issued a letter dated 15.04.2005 directing the respondent to rejoin service. Despite receiving the joining letter, the respondent, rejoined service only on 13.09.2005.

3. Since the respondent was not paid wages even after his reinstatement in the petitioner/corporation where he was continued to serve till his superannuation on 06.03.2008, the respondent in the year 2006 filed LCA No. 121/2016 claiming 30% of the backwages for the period between 02.03.1989 to 10.08.1994 and subsequently in the year 2008 filed LCA No. 861/2016 claiming full backwages for the period between 11.08.1994 to 06.03.2008. Both the aforesaid LCAs have been allowed under the impugned order, in the following terms:-

"19. In view of the above, the total computation in favour of the claimant comes out as under Rs. 15,37,979/- with following details:-

     1.      02.03.1989           30%       Rs. 44,776
             to
             10.08.1994





      2.     10.08.1994               100%      Rs. 60,054/-
            to
            31.01.1996
     3.     01.02.1996               100%      Rs. 9,99,993/-+ Rs.3,900/-
            to
            14.04.2005
     4.     14.09.2005               100%      Rs. 4,29,256/-
            to
            06.03.2008
                                     Total     Rs. 15,37,979/-

20. The claimant did not dispute that he had received a total amount Rs. 10,7660/- till now from the management. Break-up of that amount is as under:-

S.No      Date           Total amount        Paid
1.        2.3.89 to      Rs. 6,90,788/-      1st RC: 41,372/- (case
          30.9.94                            No.18/89 L Court Rajpura
                                             Road) dated 20.08.96.
                                             2nd        RC:        2,27,491/-
                                             - do- dated 13.07.01.
                                             3rd RC: 35,303/- (case No.
                                             2822/98 in LWP 1722/98 M.M
                                             Court, Tis Hazari u/s 17B
                                             4th RC : 3,86,622/- (I.D. No.
                                             180/89 Labour Court dt,
                                             27.05.05
                                             Rs.6,90,788/-
2.        01.10.04 to                        Rs. 79,577/- received vide
          30.11.05                           cheque                        no.
                                             979898                        dt.
                                             27.01.06 by hand.
3.        01.12.05 to    Rs. 2,02,392/-
          31.12.07
          Bonus                              Cheque received by hand in
          2005-2006      Rs. 1,321/-         Karkardooma in Karkardooma
          2006-2007      Rs. 2,080/-         Court on dated 09.04.2010.
          With pay       40% Rs. 12,805/-
          Comm.          60% Rs.18,697/-
          Arrears
          Total          Rs. 2,37,295/-



         Net pay        Rs. 6,90,788/-
        RC             Rs. 79,577/-
        Total paid     Rs. 10,07,660/-
        Amount

So, as per above calculation, the claimant's total computation comes out of Rs. 15,37,979/-. Till now he has got a sum of Rs. 10,07,660/- from the management. His outstanding amount towards the management is Rs. 15,37,979-10,07,660=5,30,319/-. Issue No.2 of LCA No.861/16 and relief.

21. In view of decision on issue No. 1, it is held that the management has still not paid a sum of Rs. 5,30,319/- to the claimant . The claimant is entitled to that amount and management is directed to pay that amount to the claimant within in one month from today, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest on it @ 9% per annum from today till its realization. Parties to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be kept in the file of LCA No. 861/16. Both petition bearing No. 121/16 and 861/16 under Section 33-C(2) of the Act are accordingly disposed off."

4. The present writ petition is filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation assailing the aforesaid order passed by the Labour Court.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that though the writ petition was filed in the year 2016 assailing the impugned order on the premise that the respondent was not entitled to any wages for the period when he had not rendered any actual service, but in view of the recent decision of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Shri Satnarain [W.P. (C) No.2405/2017] holding that once a writ petition filed by the Management assailing an award directing reinstatement of the workman is dismissed, the workman would be entitled to receive backwages for the period during which the writ petition had remained pending unless the Court

directs otherwise, he is not in a position to assail the order on the grounds taken in the writ petition. He however, submits that the direction of the Labour Court granting 100% wages to the respondent for the period between 14.09.2005 to 06.03.2008 when he was in service is not sustainable as once the respondent was reinstated he would have automatically received his due wages for the said period and, he, therefore, prays that the direction for payment of a sum of Rs.4,29,256/- to the respondent towards wages for his service between 14.09.2005 to 06.03.2008 be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the impugned order, submits that despite his reinstatement, the respondent has not been paid any backwages for the period between 14.09.2005 to 06.03.2008 and, therefore, the Labour Court has rightly allowed both the LCAs. He, however, submits that the petitioner had during the pendency of the LCAs before the Labour Court made some part payments to the respondent, which amount has been duly accounted for in the impugned order. He further submits that as it is the respondent, who had not joined duties between 15.04.2005 to 13.09.2005 despite the petitioner's offer on 15.04.2005 to reinstate him, the respondent is neither claiming nor has been granted any wages for the said period under the impugned order.

7. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the parties, the only issue which needs to be considered by this Court is as to whether the Labour Court was justified in directing payment of wages to the respondent for the period between 14.09.2005 to 06.03.2008 when he

was admittedly in service. Though learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, in the normal course, the wages for the said period would have been released in favour of the respondent, which assertion has been denied by the respondent, I find that the petitioner has not taken any such plea either in the writ petition or in its reply to the respondent's application filed before the Labour Court. Even during the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any record in support of his plea that the respondent was duly paid his wages for the period between 14.09.2005 to 06.03.2008. In these circumstances, I find no reason to either disbelieve the stand of the respondent or to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court upon appreciation of evidence led before it.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, I find absolutely no perversity or infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition being meritless is dismissed.

9. At this stage, it is pointed out by the parties, that the petitioner had, pursuant to order dated 17.10.2016 passed by this Court, already deposited a sum of Rs.5,30,319/- along with interest @ 9 % with the Registrar General of this Court. As the writ petition is being dismissed, the Registry is directed to release the said amount with upto date interest accrued thereon in favour of the respondent on or after 15.02.2020.

REKHA PALLI, J JANUARY 14, 2020/gm