Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ram Kishan Yadav

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JULY 23, 2012 pk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 27. + LPA 349/2012 Judgment Delivered on: 23.7.2012 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... APPELLANT Through Mr. Anand Nandan, Adv. Versus RAM KISHAN YADAV ..... RESPONDENT Through Mr. Sunil Mund, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW A.K.SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE: (ORAL) 1. The respondent-workman was employed with the appellant Delhi Transport Corporation on 28.3.1979 as Retainer Crew Driver. He was brought on monthly rates of pay with effect from 28.12.1979. It appears that in the year 1986, he started remaining unauthorizedly absent. A charge-sheet dated 19.11.1986 was served upon him to which he replied. Thereafter inquiry was conducted. As per the inquiry officer's report dated 11.5.1987, charges of unauthorized absence stood proved. Show cause notice dated 12.5.1987 was given on that basis proposing to impose the punishment of removal from service. It is the case of the appellant that no reply thereto was given even after reminder dated 12.6.1987 also served upon him and thereafter vide order dated 23.7.1987, the respondent- workman was removed from service. Admittedly, the workman did not challenge the said termination by filing any proceedings. According to him, he kept on making representations as he had no knowledge of the termination of his services since he was not served with any such order of removal from service. Further, according to the workman, though he kept making so many representations but was not given any reply. Be as it may, inspite thereof, the workman never raised any industrial dispute immediately thereafter. However, he sent demand notice only on 2.8.2004 making a demand that he should be taken back in service. When the demand of the workman was not accepted, he raised industrial dispute in the year 2005 which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication with the following terms of reference: "Whether services of Sh. Ram Kishan Yadav, S/o Sh. Sukh Ram w.e.f. 23.07.1987 have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt. Notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" 2. The appellant appeared and took a preliminary objection that there could not have been a valid reference at this stage, that is, after a lapse of 17 years. Various issues were framed by the Labour Court. We are, for time being, concerned with issue No.1 which was to the following effect: "1. Whether the present dispute raised by the workman is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay?" 3. After recording the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the Labour Court passed its award dated 17.2.2011. In so far as issue No.1 is concerned, after detailed discussion, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that reference could not be set aside or quashed simply on the ground of delay and the discretion was with the Labour Court, in case of belated reference, to mould the relief. The Labour Court gave these findings referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82. On merit, the termination was held to be bad in law. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court granted reinstatement of service and 60% back wages with continuity of service and consequential benefits. For giving a relief of 60% back wages, Labour Court again relied upon the judgment of Ajaib Singh (supra) where 60% back wages were given. The appellant filed writ petition challenging this award which has been dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.3.2012. The learned Single Judge has again referred to the judgment of Ajaib Singh (supra) holding that there was no merit in the writ petition. In the present appeal preferred against the aforesaid judg