D.T.C v. Tara Chand

REVA KHETRAPAL, J MARCH 27, 2008 VK. Page No.7 of 7

REPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27 th March, 2008 + LPA 2529/2005 D.T.C. ..... Appellant Through Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Advocate. versus TARA CHAND ..... Respondent Through Mr. K.P. Tomas, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ. (ORAL) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24 th August, 2005, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The appellant contended that the respondent-workman was absent unauthorisedly and, therefore, an order was passed by the appellant on 7 th March, 1988 holding that the respondent is deemed to have resigned from his job as he was unauthorisedly absent. Page No.1 of 7 By the same order, the period of his unauthorised absence from 6 th November, 1987 to 12 th February, 1988 was regularised. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Management-appellant, the respondent-workman raised a dispute which the appropriate Government referred to the Industrial Adjudicator. The Industrial Adjudicator registered the said reference as ID Case No.206/89, wherein the following reference was considered:- "Whether the termination of services of Sh. Tara Chand is legal and/or justified and if not, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" 2. The learned Labour Court received the pleadings filed by the parties and also recorded the evidence adduced by the parties and, thereafter passed an award holding that the order of termination passed against the respondent by the Management was illegal and unjustified. After holding in the aforesaid manner, it was further held as follows:- "The claimant has stated in his statement recorded on 07.12.1998 that he is unemployed since the date of termination of his services. He stated that he did not try to find out alternative employment as he was not keeping good health. He stated that he was not in a condition to work at all after the termination of his services. The claimant, therefore, is not entitled to any back wages. Again, the claimant has already crossed the age of superannuation. As stated hereinabove, the claimant had already worked for long 24 years with the DTC before he was deemed to have resigned the job. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief of reinstatement and back wages cannot be granted to the claimant. However, since the claimant could not be deemed to have resigned from the services for the reasons stated Page No.2 of 7 above, he will be treated to have taken voluntary retirement with effect from 07.03.1988 when the impugned order was passed. The claimant would be entitled to all the benefits including pension, gratuity, encashment of leave, if any, to his credit etc. as if he had worked in the DTC upto 07.03.1988. The issue is decided and the reference is answered accordingly." 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Award of the Labour Court, the appellant filed a writ petition which was registered as CWP No.5225/2000. The said writ petition was considered by the learned Single Judge and the same was dismissed by an order passed on 11 th September, 2000. The learned Single Judge held as follows:- "The petitioner has challenged an award dated 29 th January, 1999 passed by the Labour Court No.III. The respondent workman had been working with the petitioner for the last 24 years. The Respondent was deemed to have resigned from service with effect from 7 th March, 1988. The Ld. Labour court was of the view that the deeming provision regarding resignation was not applicable so far as the respondent-workman is concerned. Accordingly, it was directed that the respondent workman be treated to have taken voluntary retirement with effect from 7 th March, 1988. I see