D T C Vs. RAM BHAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner corporation praying inter alia for a writ of certiorari for quashing of the award dated 7th January, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court whereunder it was held that the services of the respondent workman were terminated illegally and that he was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading up to the present petition are as follows. The respondent workman was employed as a Conductor with the petitioner corporation. On 7th January, 1993, when the respondent workman was performing his duties on Bus No. 9794, the bus was checked at Sarai and he was challaned for issuing tickets of lesser denomination than what was the due fare. He was placed under suspension for the alleged misconduct. Thereafter, an enquiry followed, pursuant to which the services of the respondent workman were terminated w.e.f. 3rd October,1994. As against this, the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government by reference dated 13th February, 1996. The respondent workman filed his statement of claim in which he alleged that the enquiry was vitiated for not following the principles of natural justice. The management filed its written statement, in reply to which the respondent workman filed a rejoinder. Meanwhile in the year 1996 itself, the petitioner corporation had filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for approval of its action in terminating the services of the respondent workman, which application was dismissed in default on 1st August, 1996. Taking into account the dismissal of the said application, the Labour Court while adjudicating upon the industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Act, held that the respondent workman was deemed to be in continuous service by virtue of the dismissal of the approval application of the petitioner corporation and therefore, by way of the impugned award, directions were issued to the petitioner corporation to reinstate the respondent workman with full back wages and continuity of service.

(3.) It is relevant to note that in pursuance of the directions contained in the award, the respondent workman was reinstated in service on 22nd June, 2005. The crux of the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner corporation is as regards the payment of full back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner corporation canvassed that it is unfair, unreasonable and against the mandate of law to grant full back wages to the respondent workman. It was further stated that keeping in view the fact that the respondent workman never approached the petitioner corporation for reinstatement after 1st August, 1996, when its approval application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act was rejected, the workman does not deserve to be paid full back wages for the period when he voluntarily chose not to pursue the matter with the petitioner corporation and did not make any representation for reinstatement. Thus, at best what was payable to the respondent workman were back wages from the date of the award, i.e. w.e.f. 7th January, 2005 to the date when the respondent workman was reinstated in service, i.e. upto 22nd June, 2005 in other words, for a period of about six months. Counsel for the petitioner corporation strongly relied on the judgment of a Single Judge of this court dated 10th May, 2005 in the case of Shri. Rajbir Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation, being C.W.P. No. 3008/2003, to state that the court in similar circumstances, while being mindful of the view taken in judicial pronouncement that upon rejection of an ?approval application?, the workman would be deemed to be in service, held that as a long period had elapsed since the rejection of the application for approval filed by the management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, and the writ petition was filed by the petitioner therein after a number of years from the date of such rejection, therefore such a case was not found to be fit for ordering grant of back wages in toto. Having referred to the aforesaid judgment, it was argued that in the present case also, the application for approval filed by the petitioner Corporation was rejected in August 1996, and thereafter the respondent workman did not claim reinstatement immediately. It was stated that in view of the said fact coupled with the fact that the impugned award was passed after a lapse of almost 9 years from the date of rejection of the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, it was not appropriate for the Labour Court to grant back wages for such a long period during which the respondent workman had contributed nothing to the petitioner corporation.