RAJBIR SINGH Vs. A J S SAWHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The Petitioner-Workman has complained that the Orders passed in CW No. 5700/2000, dated January 24, 2002 have not been fully complied with till date. The operative part of the Order reads thus :-

(2.) This Order was carried in Appeal firstly before the Division Bench and thereafter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but without any success. At no point of time was the operation of the Order stayed by either of the Appellate Courts. Clearly, therefore, the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) had committed contempt of the said Orders. No explanation is forthcoming; In fact it is difficult to conceive of any defence, on this score. After the expiry of over one year, Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Mahajan, in terms of Orders dated 20.3.2003 allowed yet another opportunity to make the payment of the Petitioner's salary. A sum of Rs.3,47,719.00 has since been paid to the Petitioner, on whose behalf it is submitted that it is not the entire payment due as it does not include - (a) leave encashment, (b) bonus, (c) washing allowance and uniform expenses, (d) placement in the higher pay scale/grant of financial benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme adopted by the DTC on 23.8.2002, (e) arrears of salary with effect from December 1996 and (f) costs of Rs.3,000.00. All this was brought to the notice and attention of the Depot Manager, DTC, G.T.K. Depot, Delhi in terms of Petitioner's letter dated 27.5.2003, to which no response has been made.

(3.) In my view, the demand for payment of salary with effect from 23.8.2002 is untenable. While disposing of the petition the DTC was directed, inter alia, to "pay the salary from the date when respondent stopped paying full salary after termination of his service". The Petitioner's services were admittedly terminated on 10.7.1998 as has been observed in the immediately preceding sentence of the very same paragraph relied upon by the Petitioner. While ordering the reinstatement of a workman, the Court is possessed of discretion to stipulate the terms and conditions attendant thereto, although the normal rule is of full back-wages. The claim for payment of salary with effect from December 1996 is therefore untenable and in any event is open to two understandings, thus making it inappropriate to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.