NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. OM PRAKASH SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE New Delhi Municipal Council (the petitioner herein) seeks to challenge an order dated 16. 10. 2004 in LCA No. 67/2001 awarding an amount of rs. 62,006/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing fo the claim application till realization in favour of the respondent workman. The split up of the award amount awarded in favour of the respondent workman is as under:-

(2.) THE respondent was in the service of the petitioner. His services were terminated w. e. f. 27. 01. 1968. He challenged his termination after 10 years in 1978. The reference on the dispute so raised by the respondent was made by the Government to the Labour Court in 1978. The labour Court vide its award dated 06. 11. 1995 decided the reference in favour of the respondent workman and directed his reinstatement. Since the respondent workman had already attained the age of superannuation on 31. 03. 1991 prior to passing of the award in his favour, directions were given for payment of wages between the date of reference i. e. 19. 08. 1978 till the date on which he reached the age of superannuation i. e. 31. 03. 1991. It was specifically mentioned in the award dated 06. 11. 2005 that the respondent workman will not be entitled to any other benefits. The award passed by the Labour Court in favour of the respondent workman was tested up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court but without any success. However, the Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP filed by the management being SLP (C) No. 39/2000 vide order dated 24. 04. 2000 took note of the fact that the respondent workman had made a demand of Rs. 4 lacs from the petitioner in terms of the award in his favour which has been paid to him as admitted by the workman in his counter affidavit filed before the Supreme court. It is after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition of the management by the Supreme Court, the respondent workman filed an application under Section 33 (C) (2) being LCA No. 67/2001 and claimed the payment on account of leave encashment, medical reimbursement, bonus and security deposit. The security deposit has not been allowed by the Labour Court whereas other three claims made under Section 33 (C) (2) have been granted vide order impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) MR. Nitin Dahiya learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the relief of leave encashment and bonus that have been granted by the Labour Court in favour of the respondent workman is contrary to the terms of the industrial award in his favour that has been tested up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Mr. Ashok Mahajan learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent workman says that denial of other reliefs/claims in the industrial award to the workman were reliefs relating to increment, promotion and seniority but according to him, since the respondent was held entitled for reinstatement/back wages till the date of his superannuation, he was also entitled have the to benefit of leave encashment and bonus for the period between the date of his termination and the date on which he had reached the age of superannuation. On giving my anxious consideration to this argument advanced on behalf of the respondent workman, I could not persuade myself to agree with him. The respondent is not entitled either for leave encashment or for bonus during the period between the date of his termination and the date of his superannuation because the industrial award in his favour does not grant him consequential benefits. What has been awarded to him in the industrial award is only the relief of reinstatement/back wages from the date of his termination and the date of his superannuation. He was specifically denied all other benefits which he otherwise would have got had his reimbursement was with consequential benefits. I am supported in my view by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Shyam Bihari Lal Gupta reported as (2005) 7 SCC 40 6 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon its two earlier judgments in Rajasthan SRTC Vs. Ladulal Mali, (1996) 8 SCC 37 and AP SRTC Vs. Narsagoud, (2003) 2 SCC 212 has held that a workman unless he is granted the consequential benefits consequent upon his reinstatement, is not entitled to any other benefit.