Delhi High Court
Airports Authority Of India vs Yashpal Singh Tanwar on 13 March, 2020
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
REVIEW PET. 530/2019 & CM APPL. 54761/2019
+ CM (M) 1297/2018
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai and
Mr. Aman Yadav, Advs.
versus
YASHPAL SINGH TANWAR ... Respondent
Through: Ms. Archana Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
% J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
13.03.2020
CM APPL. 54761/2019 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
REVIEW PET. 530/2019
1. This petition seeks review of an order dated 10th October, 2019,
passed by me in CM (M) 1297/2018, whereby the said petition was
Review Petition No. 530/2019 in CM (M) 1297/2018 Page 1 of 6
allowed, and order, dated 5th September, 2018, passed by the learned
Industrial Tribunal, in Ex. P. 5522/2016 was quashed and set aside.
2. For the purposes of deciding this Review Petition, a brief
reference to facts would suffice.
3. Consequent to termination of the respondent/workman, an
industrial dispute was raised, which was referred to the learned
Industrial Tribunal, on 27th September, 1988. Vide award dated 26th
September, 1997, the learned Industrial Tribunal declined the
termination of the respondent/workman to be illegal and directed his
reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.
Consequent thereupon, on 14th May, 1998, the respondent was
reinstated in service.
4. The respondent, thereafter, moved WP(C) 3/2014, seeking
monetary benefits as well as promotion with effect from 4 th
November, 1985, consequent to the aforementioned award, dated 26th
September, 1997, of the learned Industrial Tribunal.
5. Vide order dated 9th February, 2015, the aforementioned WP (C)
3/2014 was disposed of, by a learned Single Judge of this court. The
prayer, of the respondent, for promotional benefits, was left open to be
agitated in a separate proceeding. Insofar as the claim for monetary
benefits was concerned, the learned Single Judge held that the said
claim would have to be ventilated by way of execution proceedings,
under Section 11(9) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
Review Petition No. 530/2019 in CM (M) 1297/2018 Page 2 of 6
referred to as the "ID Act"), which made awards of industrial tribunals
executable like decrees of civil courts.
6. Apparently spurred by the said observation, the respondent
preferred Ex. P. 5522/2016, before the learned Industrial Tribunal. In
the interregnum, the respondent also applied for correction of the
aforementioned award dated 26th September, 1997. Vide order dated
19th November, 2015, the learned Industrial Tribunal corrected the
award, to the extent of the pay scale specified therein, correcting the
pay scale from ₹ 210 - 360 to ₹ 260 - 350/-, in para 10 of the award.
7. The petitioner, thereafter applied for correction of the
aforementioned order dated 19th November, 2015, of the learned
Industrial Tribunal. Vide order dated 22nd June, 2016, the learned
Industrial Tribunal corrected the award only to the extent of clarifying
that the change of pay scale, as directed vide order dated 19th
November, 2015, would be effected in para 2, rather than para 10, of
the award dated 26th September, 1997.
8. On 5th September, 2018, the learned ADJ, allowed Ex. P.
5522/2016, to the extent of directing payment of back wages to the
respondent, for the period 1st June, 1981 to 30th September, 1988. An
objection, regarding delay and latches in preferring the execution
petition, as raised by the present petitioner before the learned
Industrial Tribunal, was rejected, on the ground that the execution
petition had been filed consequent to the directions contained in the
order dated 9th February, 2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP (C) 3/2014.
Review Petition No. 530/2019 in CM (M) 1297/2018 Page 3 of 6
9. The present CM (M) 1297/2018, of the judgment passed
wherein review is now being sought, was directed against the
aforementioned order, dated 5th September, 2018, of the learned ADJ
in Ex. P. 5522/2016.
10. Vide my judgment under review, I have held that the learned
ADJ erred in awarding monetary benefits from 1st June, 1981, as the
award, dated 26th September, 1997 specifically limited back wages
from 30th September, 1988 onwards. I have also found the plea, of the
petitioner, regarding the execution petition having been filed
belatedly, and beyond the 12 year limitation period available therefor,
to have substance. The writ petition was, therefore, allowed on both
these counts, and the order, dated 5th September, 2018, of the learned
ADJ, was set aside.
11. Review is, now, being sought of the aforesaid judgment dated
10th October, 2019.
12. Ms. Archana Sharma, appearing for the review petitioner, i.e.
the respondent/workman in the review petition, submits that her client
was not required to file any execution petition at all, as the award of
the learned ADJ was bound to be complied with by the respondent.
She submits, therefore, that the plea of delay and laches, which has
found favour with this court, was without substance. She also submits
that jurisdiction of the learned ADJ, to adjudicate on the execution
petition, would arise only after the provision for execution was
introduced in Section 11(9) of the ID Act in 2010. She submits that,
Review Petition No. 530/2019 in CM (M) 1297/2018 Page 4 of 6
prior to the introduction of the said provision, it was not open to her
client to file any execution petition at all.
13. A reading of the review petition reveals that the aforementioned
arguments, as canvassed by learned counsel for the review petitioner,
do not find any place in the review petition. Nor were these
contentions urged before me during the hearing of CM (M)
1297/2018. They cannot, therefore, be allowed to be raised in a review
petition, the parameters of review being to those circumscribed by
Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
14. That apart, even on merits, I do not find any substance in the
contention of learned counsel for the review petitioner. The
respondent review petitioner having himself preferred an execution
petition, and having succeeded therein, it hardly lies in the mouth of
the respondent, having lost in the writ petition preferred by the
petitioner against the order dated 5th September, 2018, to now seek to
contend that no execution petition was required to be filed at all. In
any event, such a ground cannot be countenanced by me, in the
present review petition, in view of the opinion expressed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, in its order dated 9 th February, 2015,
in WP (C) 3/2014, on the basis whereof the execution petition was
filed in the first place.
15. The execution petition, if read, specifically pressed for
execution of the award dated 26th November, 1997. The execution
petition was filed 18 years after the award was passed and became
Review Petition No. 530/2019 in CM (M) 1297/2018 Page 5 of 6
executable and in fact, 5 years even after the introduction of Section
11(9) in the ID Act.
16. In view thereof, I do not find that the review petition has
highlighted any error, apparent on the face of the record, in my
judgment dated 10th October, 2019, or made out any other ground, as
would justify review thereof.
17. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
MARCH 13, 2020/kr
