RAM NIWAS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE services of the appellant before us were terminated by the respondent on 24.5.1985. The appellant raised industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Vide order dated 1.12.1994, the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement of the appellant with continuity in service, but declined back -wages. The case of the appellant is that immediately on passing of the award, he approached the respondent on 1.12.1994 to join back on his duty, but he was not allowed to join the duties upto 12.8.1996. The appellant preferred a petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking directions to the respondent to release payment of wages for the period from 1.12.1994 to 12.6.1996. Vide order dated 7.12.2005, the Labour Court held that the appellant was entitled to wages for the period from 1.12.1994 to 12.8.1996. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent by way of W.P. (C) No. 3765/2007. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 7.9.2010, remitted the matter back to the Labour Court with direction to allow the management to produce evidence on the question as to whether the appellant had reported for duty on 1.12.1994 or not. Since the respondent also pleaded a settlement dated 7.8.1986 with the appellant whereby he gave him claim for the period prior to his joining to service, the learned Single Judge also directed adjudication of that plea of the appellant after giving opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence in support of its case. Being dissatisfied with the order of learned Single Judge, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent before the Labour Court would show that a specific plea was taken by the respondent in the reply that after passing of the award, the appellant did not report for duty for a long time and, therefore, he was not entitled to salary for the period from 1.12.1994 to 12.8.1996, the date he actually reported on duty. It was further stated in the reply that the appellant entered into an agreement dated 7.8.1996 with the respondent whereby he relinquished the demand raised by him. A perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court on 7.12.2005 would show that since the respondent did not examine any witness, as regards the averments made by it, the Labour Court held that there was no settlement between the parties on 7.8.1996. In the absence of evidence from the respondent, the Labour Court also accepted the plea of the appellant that he had reported for duty on 1.12.1994.

(2.) AS noted by the learned Single Judge, the Labour Court vide order dated 2.2.2005 closed the evidence of the respondent and did not allow it to lead evidence in support of the case set up by it. It further shows that an application filed by the respondent for leading evidence was also dismissed by the Labour Court on 7.12.2005. The learned Single Judge noted the conflicting stand taken by the parties as to whether the appellant had reported for duty on 1.12.1991 or not. She also noted that a copy of the settlement dated 7.8.1996 was on record and the said settlement purported to be signed by the respondent as well as on behalf of the Workers' Union and two witnesses. It was in these circumstances that the learned Single Judge remanded the matter back to the Labour Court to give fresh finding after giving opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence in this regard.

(3.) CONSIDERING the fact the no opportunity was given to the respondent to lead evidence despite an application having been filed seeking such an opportunity, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in granting an opportunity to the respondent to adduce evidence in this regard. As regards the settlement dated 7.8.1996, the learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments before us, did not dispute the execution of the said document but claimed that it was illegal. We note that execution of the settlement dated 7.8.1996 was disputed by the appellant before the Labour Court, as would be evidenced from paragraph 11 of the order passed by the said Court observing that in his cross examination, the appellant had denied having entered into any agreement for relinquishment of all his back wages from 1.12.1994 till date of joining. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order permitting the respondent to lead evidence in this regard.