Partly allowed

Dtc v. Devender Kumar

Delhi HC6 Sept 2011LPA/598/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quiz relating to industrial dispute settlement and service continuity, the single judge modified an award to align with Section 17B regarding back wages, set aside a non-interference clause, and directed continuous service counting for the respondent's pension benefits without a break. It also affirmed that the admiralty's exclusionary jurisdiction under Article 226 was correctly exercised no

What did the court decide?

Award dated 16th January, 2006 modified to award 50% back wages from the date respondent resumed duty and to treat the gap between removal and reinstatement as non-discontinuity of service.

Dtc Vs Devender Kumar — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

+ L.P.A. No. 598/2010

¶3

% Date of Decision: September 6, 2011

¶4

Delhi Transport Corporation ....Appellant Through Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate.

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Devender Kumar …..Respondent Through Mr. Anil Mittal, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

¶9

ORDER

¶10

Devender Kumar, respondent herein, a conductor in the

¶11

appellant, Delhi Transport Corporation, was removed from service on

¶12

16^th April, 1987. The respondent raised an industrial dispute and

¶13

succeeded vide award dated 16^th January, 2006.

¶14

In the award, it was noticed that vide order dated 6^th May, 2005,

¶15

it was held that the enquiry report was unfair and the enquiry had not

¶16

been conducted in accordance with law. The appellant, thereafter, was

¶17

granted an opportunity to lead evidence to prove misconduct, but no

¶18

evidence was led and the evidence was closed by order dated 2^nd

December, 2005.

LPA 598/2010

Page 1 of 3

The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the said award in Writ

¶23

Petition (Civil) No. 15523/2006 which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 22^nd February, 2010. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has held that the industrial adjudicator has recorded findings of fact and once the appellant did not lead evidence to prove the charge there was no justification to exercise extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the court would not reappreciate the facts as an appellate forum.

¶24

It may be noticed that the Industrial Adjudicator in the award dated 16^th January, 2006, had directed that the respondent would be reinstated with all consequential benefits but had restricted the back wages to 50%. Learned Single Judge has not interfered with the award of back wages.

¶25

In the appeal it is admitted that the respondent was reinstated in

¶26

service vide letter dated 8^th June, 2010. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent was allowed to resume duty in lieu of payment under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 w.e.f. 16^th February, 2009, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and had reported for duty in July, 2009, but has not paid regular salary till 8^th June, 2010. Learned counsel for the

¶27

respondent has submitted that he would be satisfied and would not LPA 598/2010 Page 2 of 3

¶28

claim back wages in case regular salary as per normal scales are paid by

¶29

the appellant from the date the respondent had reported for duty in July, 2009. We find this suggestion given by the learned counsel for the respondent is just, fair and should be accepted. Accordingly, the award dated 16^th January, 2006, is modified to the extent that the appellant has been directed to pay 50% back wages. The said direction is set aside. It is directed that the appellant will pay back wages to the respondent from the date the respondent had reported for work after the letter dated 16^th February, 2009 was issued. However, the period between 16^th April, 1987 till the respondent joined the duty will not be treated as break in service and would be counted for the purpose of pension and retirement benefits.

¶30

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will

¶31

be no order as to costs.

¶32

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶33

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶34

September 6, 2011 kkb

¶35

LPA 598/2010

¶36

Page 3 of 3

Dtc v. Devender Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dtc v. Devender Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

UOI and Anr. Vs Ms Tewari and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ved M.Rao Vs Secretary , Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Ors.

Sudhansh Sharma Vs Indira Gandhi National Open University

Council of Architecture Vs All India Council for Technical Education & Anr.

Raju Bhojwani Vs Cit