MCD Vs. BHANWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitions though impugn three separate awards/order of the Industrial Tribunal but all between the employer MCD and its same employee/workman.

(2.) THE workman on 8th October, 1996 filed a complaint with the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33A of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 of the terms of his employment having been changed during the pendency of a general dispute between the employer MCD and the Chowkidar, Beldar, Bullockmen, Bhishties, Coolies, Machinemen, Hedgemen, Garden Chaudhary etc. employed with it. THE terms of employment were alleged to have been changed by his transfer from Shahdara (North) Zone where he was then working to the Headquarters (Horticulture Deptt.).

(3.) THE first of the aforesaid three matters to be decided was the award dated 10th October, 2001 in the reference in para 3 aforesaid with respect to the transfer of the workman. THE Industrial Tribunal held the transfer to be illegal for the reason of the same having been effected owing to the workman having misbehaved with his superior and thus being punitive and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the workman. THE Industrial Tribunal further held that the workman had not been allowed to resume duties in the transferred office also and hence held the workman entitled to payment of arrears of back wages for the entire period till the date of resuming duties at Shahdara (North) Zone. Aggrieved therefrom W.P.(C) No.4231/2002 has been filed. Vide interim order dated 17 th September, 2002 the operation of the award for payment of arrears of back wages for the entire period from the order of transfer till the date of resuming duties was stayed. However the counsel for the workman informs that prior to the said interim order, the workman had executed the said award and has recovered back wages from the date of order of transfer till the year 2004. THE counsel for the employer MCD has no instructions in this regard. However since the counsel for the workman states that the said monies have been recovered, the question of the workman being entitled to recover the same again will not arise.