D. T. C. Vs. RAMESHWAR DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court, proposes to dispose the following two writ petitions, vide the present common Judgment:

(2.) The Petitioner/Management terminated the service of the Respondent/Workman vide letter dtd. 17/1/1992 after conducting a domestic enquiry. At that time, a dispute between the Petitioner/Management and its Workmen relating to the implementation of the 4th Pay Commission report was pending before the learned Labour Court. Hence the Petitioner/Management filed an Approval Application under Sec. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D. Act") before the learned Labour Court seeking the permission of the learned Labour Court to terminate the service of the Respondent/Workman. Learned Labour Court vide Award dtd. 24/2/2001 dismissed the said approval Application and denied the permission to the Petitioner/Management. The Petitioner/Management challenged the said Award dtd. 24/2/2001 before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5860/2001. This Court vide order dtd. 17/11/2005 allowed the said Writ Petition and remanded the matter back to the learned Labour Court for fresh adjudication. In the meanwhile, the Respondent/Workman vide separate proceedings raised an Industrial Dispute, ID No.101/2001 challenging his termination. Learned Labour Court vide Impugned Award-I held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Petitioner/Management was vitiated and hence directed the Petitioner/Management for the reinstatement of the Respondent/Workman with back wages and continuity of service. It appears that the factum of the Impugned Award-I was not disclosed to this Court or Labour Court -II which was dealing with the approval Application (OP 28/1992) after the same was remanded back from this Court. Hence vide Impugned Award-II dtd. 21/2/2007, learned Labour Court-II held that the Respondent/Workman is guilty of misconduct and granted permission to the Petitioner/Management to proceed with the termination order. The Petitioner/Management is aggrieved by the Impugned Award-I whereas the Respondent/Workman is aggrieved by the Impugned Award-II.

(3.) It is also pertinent to mention here that after the passing of the impugned Award-I, the Petitioner/Management was not implementing the Impugned Award-I. Hence the Respondent/Workman filed W.P(C) No. 18476/2004 before this Court, praying, inter alia, for the implementation of the Impugned Award-1. This Court had taken up all the 3 Writ Petitions together and vide order dtd. 9/4/2010, directed, inter alia, as follows: "W.P.(C) 18476/2004 was preferred by the deceased workman seeking direction for his reinstatement with the DTC subsequent to the dismissal by the Labour Court of the application under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act preferred by the DTC. However, DTC had challenged the rejection of the application under Sec. 33(2)(b) and that writ petition was allowed and the matter remanded. The Labour Court on remand has allowed the Sec. 33(2)(b) application and which order has now been challenged by the workman in WP(C) 2631/2007. In the circumstances, WP(C) No. 18476/2004 filed by the workman claiming reinstatement has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. However, the file of the same be tagged to the file of the other two writ petitions as certain documents filed therein may be required in the disposal of the other two petitions. As far as the other two petitions are concerned, the counsel for the legal heirs of Rameshwar Dayal states that he has been newly engaged and seeks adjournment. Rule in W.P.(C) 6347/2006 & W.P.(C) 2631/2007 ..."