D T C Vs. JAG BHUSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 3/2/2005 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ petitions filed by the appellant assailing the award dated 6.3.2000 by the Industrial Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal, while allowing applications filed by the respondent-workmen under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the I.D. Act'), held that the dismissal of the workmen from services was illegal and granted reinstatement with full back wages.

(2.) The facts leading to the present appeals may be recounted. The employees of the Appellant, the Delhi Transport Corporation, had been demanding revision of their pay scales on the lines of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission. Since the revision of pay-scales was not implemented in relation to all the employees, five unions of the appellant served a notice stating that if their demands were not met by 16.3.1988, the employees would go on an indefinite strike. On 11.3.1988, a notification under Section 3(1) of the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981 read with Essential Services Maintenance (Amendment) Act, 1985 (for short 'the ESMA') was issued whereby it was directed that any strike commenced or declared before or after the issuance of the said order by a person employed in the essential services, shall be illegal. Despite this notification, the employees went on strike on 17.3.1988. Since the ensuing conciliation proceedings failed, the dispute whether the workmen were entitled to the benefits of the Fourth Pay Commission, and if so from which date, was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi.

(3.) The strike continued thereafter. The appellant invoked its powers under Proviso (ii) to Clause 15(2)(c) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (for short 'the Regulations') on the ground that it was not possible to hold an inquiry. It accordingly decided to waive the procedure outlined under Regulation 15(2)(c). The workmen were dismissed from their services on 24.3.1988. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, appeals were filed by the workmen before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the appellant and these too were rejected. The writ petitions filed by the workmen challenging the order of their dismissal and the validity of Proviso (ii) to clause 15(2)(c) of the Regulations were decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chander v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 1989 (1) Delhi Lawyer 23 (DB). The Court, while granting partial relief to the workmen, upheld the validity of Proviso (ii) to Clause 15(2)(c) of the Regulations as well as the notification issued under the ESMA. However it permitted the workmen to pursue their remedies under Section 33 A, l.D. Act for the contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the same Act. The Court further directed the Appellate Authority of the DTC to either hold an inquiry itself or to direct such an inquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of Clause 15(2)(c) of the Regulations and pass appropriate orders.