DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this application, the applicant / respondent - workman seeks clarification of the order dated 23.12.2015 inter alia on the ground that the petitioner corporation filed this writ petition challenging the award dated 30.04.2013 passed in DID No.475/2009 by the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the respondent - workman was granted the relief of back- wages with effect from the date of termination of service i.e. 06.12.2006 till the date of his superannuation alongwith continuity of service and consequential benefits. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2015 whereby the findings of the Labour Court regarding holding the termination of the respondent - workman illegal was upheld. However, the award was modified by granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.5 lacs to the applicant - workman instead of full back-wages. The applicant - workman approached the officials of the petitioner corporation for repayment of awarded compensation as well as pension and other post-retirement benefits. The respondent / applicant was advised to fill up the relevant form for processing the pension in the concerned depot and a letter dated 11.02.2016 to this effect was sent to the applicant - workman by the Depot Manager of the petitioner corporation. An amount of Rs.5 lac was also transferred in the account of the respondent - applicant on 19.02.2016. However, subsequently, when the respondent - applicant contacted the concerned depot for submitting the relevant form for processing the pension, the officials of the petitioner corporation refused to process the same on the ground that the lumpsum compensation of Rs.5 lacs has been granted by the Court in lieu of full and final settlement of all the claims of the respondent - workman inclusive of statutory post-retirement benefit of bonus, gratuity, etc. It is submitted that the respondent - workman is statutorily entitled to post-retirement benefits and the petitioner corporation has no right to deny the same to the respondent - workman. Hence the judgment and order dated 23.12.2015 requires clarification.

(2.) According to the non-applicant / corporation, the workman was initially out of service from 1994 to 2003 and thereafter from 2006 till the date of his superannuation i.e. more than 18 years and had taken more than Rs.5,50,246/- as back-wages in the year 2003. The Court had granted a lump-sum amount of Rs.5 lac on the ground that awarding of full wages with all consequential benefits would tantamount to unjust enrichment without contributing anything to the petitioner corporation as such the respondent - workman is not entitled for other benefits.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant - respondent - workman submits that the workman joined the petitioner corporation in the year 1974 on temporary basis and was made permanent on 25.05.1977. The incident in question leading to present proceedings took place on 20.06.1994. However, till that date already a period of 17 years of active service was completed in addition to 3 years of service on temporary basis. The respondent - workman was out of service for around eight and a half years from October, 1994 till 06.03.2003 on account of illegal termination which was subsequently held to be illegal and he was reinstated. Thereafter, from 06.03.2003 till 06.07.2006, he was again in active service till he was terminated on 06.12.2006 till superannuation. As such, the workman was in active service for a period of 21 years in addition to 3 years on temporary basis. He was out of service for approximately 12 and a half years on account of previous and present illegal termination. The workman could not be granted reinstatement in service since he had already attained the age of superannuation in November, 2010. The Labour Court granted full back-wages for the intervening period i.e. 06.12.2006 till superannuation in November, 2010 which was modified to compensation of Rs.5 lacs by this Court. However, the award of this amount does not disentitles the applicant - workman to the statutory retirement benefits i.e. pension for 10 years of active service and gratuity for 5 years of service which was already completed in 1987 much before either of the alleged incident. Reliance is placed on Mahavir Prasad v Delhi Transport Corporation, 212 (2014) Delhi Law Times 503 (DB).