DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RAJ PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent workman was employed with DTC as a driver. He met with an accident and was hospitalized. On regaining health, he reported for duty with a Medical Certificate recommending that he should be given light duty. The case of the appellant is that the respondent was sent for medical check-up and after receipt of the report of the Medical Board, declaring him unfit for the duty of a driver, he was given light duty. The respondent, according to the appellant, was supposed to go for medical examination at regular intervals, but he did not appear before the Medical Board on 19.02.1992 and raised an industrial dispute alleging removal from service.

(2.) During pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the appellant instituted an enquiry against the respondent workman, alleging unauthorized absence from duty. The enquiry proceedings culminated in passing of the order dated 19.11.1999, terminating the services of the respondent. No dispute with respect to the termination vide order dated 19.11.1999 was raised by the respondent. The Tribunal vide award dated 01.10.2004 held the termination order dated 19.11.1999 to be illegal. A writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Tribunal was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 13.09.2006. In an appeal filed by the workman respondent, the matter was remanded back to the Writ Court. Vide order dated 09.05.2012, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.

(3.) In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Om Prakash Sharma, 2006 5 SCC 123, an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent workman culminating in a reference being made to the Industrial Tribunal with respect to the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman and employing another junior workman in his place in violation of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court concluded that the respondent had failed to prove that after termination of services another workman was employed in his place in violation of Section 25H of the Act. A finding, however, was arrived at that no seniority record was maintained as required under Rule 17 of Industrial Disputes Rules and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to be reinstated in service with 50% of back wages. The appellant before Supreme Court filed writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition taking a view that if the reference in the question referred only to Section 25 of the Act, the same would not debar the Tribunal from going into other illegalities committed under the Act or the Rules. An intra-Court appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the award to the extent of order of reinstatement with back wages, Supreme Court, inter alia, observed and held as under:-