Manmod Shankar vs Lic Of India & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 232 Del

                                                             Signature Not Verified
                                                             Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
                                                             Signing Date:25.01.2022
                                                             23:35:13



$~1
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                               Date of decision: 24th January, 2022
+                  W.P.(C) 6310/2019
       MANMOD SHANKAR                            ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Ms. Charu Sharma & Ms. Tanya
                              Singh, Advocates.
                   versus

       LIC OF INDIA & ANR                       ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Mohinder Singh, Advocate.
       CORAM:
       JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing. CM APPL. 46487/2021 in W.P.(C) 6310/2019

2. Vide this application, the Petitioner/Workman (hereinafter "Workman") seeks the opening of the sealed cover submitted by the Respondent/ Management (hereinafter "Management") in relation with the result of the interview of Workman conducted for the post of HGA. It also seeks directions to the Management for granting promotion and increment payable to the Workman.

3. The background of the matter is that the present petition was filed by the Workman challenging the award dated 11th February 2019 passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 04/2017 titled Shri Manmod Shankar v M/s LIC of India & Anr. vide which the Labour Court directed reinstatement of Workman into service without any pecuniary/ monetary benefit from the date of Workman's removal till the publication of award. The award was challenged by both, the Management vide W.P.(C) 6214/2019 titled Life

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:25.01.2022 23:35:13

Insurance Corporation of India v. Sh Manmod Shankar, and the Workman vide W.P.(C) 6310/2019 (the present petition) titled Sh. Manmod Shankar v. Life Insurance Corporation of India. This Court dismissed both the petitions vide a common judgment dated 29th June 2020 while upholding the Labour Court's order reinstating the Workman without back wages.

4. On the previous date, the Registry had informed this Court that a Special Leave Petition SLP(C) No. 11401/2020 titled Manmod Shankar v LIC of India & Anr. was preferred by the Workman challenging the said judgment passed by this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 1st October 2020. However, neither is the factum of the SLP being preferred by the Workman against the judgment of this Court mentioned in the present application nor has the order passed by the Supreme Court been filed on the record of this Court.

5. Notably, an LPA had also been filed by the Workman being LPA No.93/2021 titled Mahmof Shankar v. LIC of India & Anr., challenging the judgment of this Court dated 29th June, 2020, and the same was dismissed by the Ld. Division Bench, vide order dated 4th March, 2021. This fact has also not been brought to the notice of this Court by the Workman.

6. In view of these facts, vide previous order dated 21 st December, 2021, this Court had directed that the judgments in the said SLP and LPA be brought on record. The same are now on record.

7. As for the present application, being CM 46487/2021, the Workman seeks the following reliefs:

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:25.01.2022 23:35:13

"a) Open and publish the result of the petitioner filed by the respondent no. I corporation and kept in a scaled cover along with records of this present petition, and /or;

b) Direct the respondents to grant back dated four promotions to the petitioner, which became due and payable during the service period of the petitioner with the respondent no. 1 corporation from the date of joining till his retirement and accordingly direct torevise the pension on the basis of the grade pay payable at the time of his retirement, and/or;

c) Direct the respondents to grant grade promotion increments on the basis of the said promotions due to the petitioner from the date of joining till his retirement and/or grant annual increments due and payable to the petitioner for his services from the year 2010 till his retirement, and/or;

d) Allow any other relief which this Hon 'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present matter."

8. It is surprising that in the application, there is no mention of the LPA filed by the Workman challenging the judgment of this Court dated 29 th June, 2020 and even the SLP order has not been disclosed in the application. Today, Mr. Mohinder Singh, ld. Counsel for LIC, submits that the Workman has also moved to the CGIT in respect of seeking various increments and other monetary benefits.

9. This Court has perused the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 1st October, 2020 which reads as under:

"1. Mr Rajat Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the petitioner is present with him during the course of the hearing

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:25.01.2022 23:35:13

through video conferencing. After arguing the petition, he applies for withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition to enable the petitioner to pursue such remedies as are available in law.

2. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn."

10. The Court has also perused the order passed by the Ld. Division Bench in LPA 93/2021 dated 4th March, 2021, the relevant excerpt of which read as under:

"10. We are unable to agree. What the aforesaid judgment lays down is, that there is no right in a workman to claim back wages for the period for which he has not worked and back wages are to be denied where the workman is shown to be employed elsewhere and/or even otherwise in the facts of the case. The facts which have prevailed with the Labour Court as well as with the Single Judge for denying back wages to the appellant in the present case, notwithstanding the appellant being not employed elsewhere, are that though the appellant was guilty of misconduct but the punishment of removal from service, considering his past service, was disproportionate to the misconduct. When these reasons have prevailed for denying the back wages, the factum of whether the appellant was employed elsewhere or not, is irrelevant. Phool Chand supra nowhere lays down that a workman would always be entitled to back wages unless shown to be gainfully employed elsewhere.

11. We may also record that on enquiry, it has been informed that the appellant, on 30th June, 2020 has attained the age of superannuation and has, during the pendency of the writ petitions before this Court, received full wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act and is now, consequent to the award of reinstatement in service which has been affirmed by the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:25.01.2022 23:35:13

Single Judge, is receiving pension.

12. No case for interfering with the discretion, found to have been lawfully and properly exercised by the Labour Court as well as by the Single Judge, is made out.

13. Dismissed."

11. The present application is conspicuously silent on all these aspects. Moreover, the sealed cover has since been opened by this Court and as per the report, the Workman was not selected for promotion by the Committee in the interview dated 10th February, 2020 for the post of HGA, Administration. The document in the said sealed cover has been opened. Let the same be scanned and tagged along with the record of the present writ petition.

12. Insofar as the other benefits which the Workman seeks in this application, since the writ petition has already been disposed of, no further orders as prayed for, can be granted.

13. The present application is disposed of in these terms.

14. It is made clear however, that if the Workman has approached the CGIT, the CGIT shall consider the claims of the Workman in accordance with law and in accordance with the judgment dated 29th June, 2020, and the orders passed by the ld. Division Bench and the Supreme Court in LPA 93/2021 and in SLP(C) No. 11401/2020.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE JANUARY 24, 2022/Aman/MS