DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. ROHTASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the award dated 29. 8. 2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in ID No. 50/2004 in case titled The management of M/s DTC Vs. Its Workman Sh. Rohtash Singh. By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Tribunal has held that the termination of service of the workman under Clause 14 (10) (c) of the Delhi Road Transport Act (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations) without giving an opportunity of being heard was held to be illegal and unjustified on the part of the petitioner and accordingly, the said termination was set aside and the respondent/workman (since deceased) was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and with all consequential benefits along with 50% of the back wages. The petitioner /management feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award and has accordingly challenged the same.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) THE first contention which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner/management is that admittedly the respondent/workman (since deceased) was deemed to have resigned w. e. f. 23. 10. 1990 on account of his continued absence despite intimation having been sent to him repeatedly. It is urged that the respondent/workman slept over the matter and approached appropriate Government belatedly after a lapse of 14 years when the reference was made on 26. 5. 2004 to the Industrial Tribunal with regard to the legality of the deemed resignation under the aforesaid clause. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very fact that reference was made after a period of 14 years, the reference itself ought not to have been considered and answered by the learned Labour Court on account of inordinate delay and laches and in any case merely on account of the fact that the petitioner /management did not assail the reference by the appropriate Government by filing a writ petition in the High Court, it did not preclude the petitioner /management from raising this issue even after the final award having been passed.