DTC Vs. HUKUM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application has been filed by the respondent workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act for claiming benefits under the said section.

(2.) THE Counsel for the respondent applicant contended that the workman has been out of job since his removal from service on 19/1/1995 and has not been employed in any establishment ever since and has no means of livelihood. The applicant has one school going son, one unemployed son and one widowed daughter to support. The Counsel urged that since this Court has stayed the operation of the award thus, the workman be paid his full monthly wages by the DTC in view of Section 17B ID Act. The Counsel maintained that the workman was getting about Rs. 4,000/ - pm at the time of termination of his services. The Counsel also submitted that at present about Rs. 15,000/ - is the salary of a driver under the employment of DTC.

(3.) IN rejoinder, the Counsel for the applicant respondent submitted that in May 2008, the applicant filed application under Section 17B ID Act and prior to any decision thereon, the petitioner itself passed an office order dated 2/9/2008 directing applicant workman to report for duty, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the present petition pending before this Court and for performance of his duties, the DTC decided to pay minimum wages. The Counsel maintained that pursuant to the said order, the workman joined duties but he is being paid Rs. 3,591/ - pm for performing the same duties while his other colleagues of his seniority are being paid Rs. 19,000/ - pm although discharging same duties. The Counsel urged that the petitioner's conduct in this regard is violative of the cardinal principle of equal pay for equal work. The Counsel thus urged for direction to be given to the management to pay him the same monthly amount as is being paid to his other colleagues of his seniority, who are performing the same duties.