JAGDEV Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was employed as a Conductor with the respondent/DTC. He was charge sheeted on the allegations that he had charged fare from four passengers without issuing tickets to them. Pursuant to an inquiry, the appellant was removed from service. A dispute raised by him with respect to his removal from service was referred for adjudication to Labour Court, which directed his reinstatement but denied back wages to him on the ground that in his affidavit, the appellant had not stated that he had remained unemployed after his removal from service. Being aggrieved from denial of back wages, the appellant preferred a writ petition which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 7th December, 2012. The said order is under challenge by way of this appeal.

(2.) It is an admitted position that neither the appellant made an averment before the Labour Court that he was not gainfully employed after his removal from service nor did he lead any evidence to this effect. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that even in the absence of any averment and evidence with respect to the appellant not being gainfully employed after his removal from service, at least part wages should have been paid to him in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Jal Sansthan Vs. Daya Shankar Rai and Anr., 2005 5 SCC 124, where the Supreme Court, inter alia, observed and held as under:-

(3.) We had occasion to examine the issue of payment of back wages on reinstatement of a workman in LPA No.24/2013 titled 'Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Sarjeevan Kumar' decided on 21st January, 2013. After considering various decisions of the Apex Court, including the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the legal proposition in this regard was enunciated as under:-