PRITHVI SINGH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT.

(2.) WITH the consent of Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition feeling aggrieved with the orders dated 13-6-2002 and 26-7-2002 whereby the increments of the petitioner were withheld with cumulative effect. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not given adequate opportunity by the respondent and he was given just 72 hours to reply to the show-cause notice dated 29-5-2002. On the other hand, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent is that the present dispute is covered by the Industrial disputes Act and, therefore, the remedy if at all the same lies in setting the machinery of the Industrial disputes Act in motion. I find force, in the arguments of Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 13-6-2002 and 26-7-2002 whereby his increments were withheld with cumulative effect. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a workman and the respondent is an employer. The dispute raised by the petitioner does constitute an industrial dispute as envisaged under section 2 (JC) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 2 (K) is reproduced as under: