The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Anand Bihari, which directed the calculation of compensation based on the remaining years of service for prematurely retired workmen.

( 1 ) COUNSEL for the respondent states that he does not wish to file any counter affidavit in WP (C) No. 512/2006 and that the stand taken by the respondent/ workman in WP (C) No. 15220/2004 filed by him, may be adopted for the purposes of deciding the present writ petition. Permission is granted.

( 2 ) RULE.

( 3 ) WITH the consent of the parties, both the matters are being heard and disposed of finally. WP (C) No. 512/2006 has been filed by the DTC against the award dated 14. 1. 2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I. D. No. 157/1999 and WP (C) No. 15220/2004 has been filed by the workman for implementation of the award.

( 4 ) TO decide both the cases, the facts of WP (C) No. 512/2006 are taken note of. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the deceased workman, Shri Rajpal was employed with the petitioner/dtc as Driver w. e. f. 23. 5. 1977. On 9. 7. 1998, the DTC Medical Board declared the respondent/ workman unfit for duty. Vide order dated 24. 7. 1998, Shri Rajpal was retired prematurely from the services of the DTC/corporation under the DRTA Regulations. Upon being retired, the respondent/ workman raised a dispute, which was referred by the appropriate authority for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The terms of reference were as below :

"whether the premature retirement of Sh. Rajpal is illegal and or unjustified and if So to what relief is he entitled and what Directions are necessary in this respect""

( 5 ) AFTER hearing the parties on both the sides and taking into consideration the material placed on record, the Industrial Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the premature retirement of the workman Shri Rajpal was unjustified and he was held entitled to compensation equal to two months salary at the time of his retirement (i. e. Rs. 7000/- per month) x the number of years of service i. e. , 21 years which as per the award came to Rs. 2,94,000/-, in addition to all usual retiral benefits.

( 6 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that there is an error on the face of the record inasmuch as while passing the award, the Industrial Tribunal while relying on a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Anand bihari Versus Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur reported at air 1991 SC 1003 particularly, para 12 thereof, erroneously calculated the amount payable to the respondent/ workman by way of compensation on the basis of number of years of service rendered, instead of computing the amount on the basis of remaining years of service as directed by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment.

( 7 ) THE aforesaid legal position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. The whole issue hinges only on the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Anand Bihari (supra ). The Supreme Court while directing the respondent/ Corporation therein to formulate a scheme, had observed as below:-

". . . . . . . . Bearing in mind all the aforesaid factors, we direct the corporation as follows:- (I) The corporation shall in addition to giving each of the retired workmen his retirement benefits, offer him any other alternative job which may be available and which he is eligible to perform. (ii) In case no alternative job is available, each of the workmen shall be paid alongwith his retirement benefits, an additional compensatory amount as follows : (a) Where the employee has put in 5 years or less than 5 years service, the amount of compensation shall be equivalent to 7 days salary per year of the balance of his service : (b) Where the employee has put in more than 5 years but less than 10 years service, the amount of compensation shall be equivalent to 15 days salary per year of the balance of his service : (c) Where the employee has put in more than 10 years service but less than 15 years service, the amount of compensation shall be equivalent to 21 days salary per year of the balance of his service : (d) Where the employee has put in more than 15 yea