DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner DTC seeks quashing / setting aside of the award dated 23rd March, 2005 of Industrial Tribunal on the following reference:- "Whether Sh. Om Parkash S/o Sh. Mangal Ram is entitled to the arrears in the pay scale of driver, if so what directions are necessary in this respect?" in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner DTC. The award directs the petitioner DTC to pay to the respondent the pay scale of a driver w.e.f. 1st February, 1996 and out of which amount 50% has been directed to be paid to the respondent and the balance 50% directed to be deposited in his provident fund account. This Court vide ex parte order dated 16th December, 2005 while issuing the notice of the writ petition stayed the operation of the award. The said order, vide order dated 8th August, 2007, was confirmed till the disposal of this petition.

(2.) The respondent, on 23rd May, 1977 was appointed as and started working as a driver with the petitioner DTC. During the course of his employment, he was sent for medical examination by the petitioner DTC; the medical board declared the respondent unfit for the post of driver. The petitioner DTC thereafter vide order dated 31st March, 1980 prematurely retired the respondent from service of the petitioner DTC with immediate effect. The respondent on 9th April, 1980 applied to the petitioner DTC for absorbing him in the cadre of store attendant on compassionate grounds. The respondent was vide letter dated 21st July, 1980 of the petitioner DTC informed that his request had been acceded to and offered the job of a store attendance on the terms and conditions contained therein. The said terms inter alia were that the respondent would be re-designated to the post of store attendant and his pay would be fixed at Rs.206/- in the pay scale of 200-03-212-04-232 EB-240. The respondent communicated his consent to the aforesaid offer of the petitioner DTC and the petitioner DTC vide order dated 1st August, 1980 re-designated the respondent as store attendant w.e.f. 2nd August, 1980 and on other terms and conditions including as to pay scale of a store attendant contained therein.

(3.) It is the case of the respondent workman that he had accepted the pay scale of a store attendant under protest and had demanded the pay scale of a driver which he was getting at the time of his premature retirement. It is further his case that the management of the petitioner DTC had assured him that since a number of employees had already filed writ petitions before this Court on similar facts and for protection of their pay scale, in the event of the said writ petitioners succeeding, the respondent would also be entitled to the pay scale of a driver and the additional amounts would be reimbursed to him. I may however notice that there is no document to the said effect. It is further the case of the respondent that this Court while deciding the various writ petitions similar to the case of the respondent, directed the petitioner DTC to protect the pay scale of employees whose ranks were reduced due to disability during the course of employment; however, contrary to the assurances meted out to him, he was not given the pay scale of a driver. The petitioner thereafter raised a dispute on which the reference aforesaid was made on 26th March, 2004. The petitioner DTC resisted the claim of the respondent on the ground of:- (i) Delay. (ii) Denying that the respondent had protested against the scale of store attendant or had demanded the scale of a driver or was assured the said scale in the event of petitions filed by others similarly situated as the respondent succeeding.