The appeal against an industrial dispute award directed the reduction of back wages from 50% to 25% due to the respondent workman's extensive history of unauthorized absence, modifying the original order.
Direction modified to payment of 25% back wages to the respondent workman in satisfaction of the Award.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~19
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through : Sh. U.N. Tiwari and Sh. Sunil Ojha, Advocates.
versus GULAB SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Sh. M. Husain, Advocate, for respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
O R D E R % 05.02.2016 CAV.107/2016
Learned counsel for the caveator has put in appearance. Cav. 107/2016 accordingly stands discharged.
LPA 78/2016 & C.M. APPL.4129-4131/2016
Issue notice. Sh. M. Husain, Advocate accepts notice.
days and punishment of reduction in increment was awarded. On 19.03.1993, on allegations of his unauthorised absence for about two weeks, he was issued a Show Cause Notice which was followed by an enquiry. By an order dated 23.08.1993 he was removed from service. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the Appropriate Government by Order dated 10.08.1998. Apparently, an Award was made against the management in 2001 which was carried in writ proceedings. The Award was set-aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. In the fresh round, availing of the opportunity to lead evidence to justify fairness of enquiry, the management produced materials. This time, the Labour Court concluded that the enquiry was fair and just and that the misconduct was proved. However, exercising its powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the punishment was set aside as the Labour Court felt that it was disproportionate. As a measure of balancing, the Labour Court directed reinstatement but with reduced back wages @ 50%. This order has not been interfered with by the learned Single Judge.
absent on several occasions. In 1990, he was absent for 63 days. In 1991, he was absent for 81 days and in 1992 for 129 days. He had been earlier cautioned and even the penalty of withholding of increment was imposed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
FEBRUARY 05, 2016 ‘ajk’
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the award of 50% back wages for reinstatement in an industrial dispute is appropriate given the workman's history of unauthorized absence.
Whether the revisional court has jurisdiction to modify the percentage of back wages despite the original award upholding reinstatement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Delhi Transport Corporation
Gulab Singh
S. Ravindra Bhat
Deepa Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
