D.T.C. Vs. RANBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 782/2008 (exemption)

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 1.11.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The service of the respondent workman was terminated by the appellant on the ground of his unauthorised absence. Consequent to the aforesaid order of termination an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1949 was filed by the appellant before the Labour Court. The Labour Court went into the issue and on completion of the proceedings held that no approval as sought for could be granted and the approval application was dismissed in default. The said order came to be challenged in a writ petition filed by the management being WP(C) No. 646/2006 which was again dismissed on the ground of delay and laches by judgment/order dated 7th July, 2004. Consequently, no approval was granted as required under the law to the order of termination issued against the workman. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner filed an intra court appeal, being LPA No. 2671/2005 which was also dismissed by a Division Bench vide order dated 13 December, 2005 wherein it was observed that there was no reason for condoning the delay on the part of the management in filing the writ petition. The Supreme Court and this Court in catena of judgments has held that if the approval is not granted to an order of termination in that event the workman would be deemed to be continued in service, (see in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma, : (2002) 2 SCC 44). When the aforesaid settled position of law is applied to the facts of this writ petition, it may be held that the respondent continued in service, since no approval to the order of termination was granted by the competent Court. Therefore, the respondent would be entitled to get his wages as he was working and continued to work with the appellant. In this connection we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N. State Transport Corporation v. Neethivilangan, Kumbaonam, : (2001) 9 SCC 99 wherein the aforesaid principle is enunciated. The Supreme Court in the said judgment observed as under :

(3.) THEREFORE , the liability to pay the arrears of back wages to the extent the workman was entitled, should not have been denied by the appellant. On going through the records also, we find that knowing the aforesaid position the appellant also got computed the arrears of back wages payable to the respondent and the same was worked out to an amount of Rs. 6,93,650/ -. It is submitted before us by the counsel appearing for the appellant that the management did not execute any document of compromise with the respondent workman for arriving at the aforesaid figure of Rs. 6,93,650/ - as held by the learned Single Judge.