Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.-

1. The employer DTC in this writ petition impugns the award dated 11th October, 1999 of the Labour Court on the following reference:- “Whether the services of Sh. Arun Kumar have been terminated illegally and/ or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

2. The respondent workman was appointed as Assistant Body Fitter with the petitioner DTC on 2nd December, 1978 and thereafter promoted as Body Fitter on 17th April, 1981. The petitioner DTC vide order dated 20th November, 1985, holding that the respondent workman had absented from duty without intimation or leave application from 29th July, 1985 to 28th October, 1985, in accordance with Clause 14(10)(c) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 declared the respondent workman as deemed to have resigned his appointment w.e.f. 29th October, 1985. On dispute being raised by the respondent workman and reference aforesaid being made, the Labour court finding Clause 14(10)(c) supra to have been held by the Courts to be illegal and void and further finding that the respondent workman had not been given any charge-sheet and no inquiry conducted, held termination of his services as illegal and unjustified and directed the petitioner DTC to reinstate the respondent workman. However the question of whether full back wages were to be granted to the respondent workman or not was directed to be decided by the petitioner DTC in accordance with its Rules and Regulations.

3. Aggrieved from the aforesaid award, the petitioner DTC preferred this writ petition. This Court vide ex parte order dated 5th July, 2000 while issuing Rule in the petition stayed the operation of the award. Subsequently, on 26th July, 2002, the said order was affirmed till the disposal of the writ petition. The respondent workman applied under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Vide order dated 28th October, 2002, it was directed that he will be entitled to last drawn wages not less than minimum wages w.e.f. 28th September, 2000.

4. On 19th November, 2007, the counsel for the respondent workman informed that the respondent workman had expired on 24th October, 2007. On 17th December, 2007, the legal heirs namely the widow and minor daughter of the deceased workman were substituted in his place and a cheque for Rs.1,39,766/- in compliance of the order under Section 17-B of the Act in the name of the widow of the deceased workman was handed over. Subsequently, on 22nd September, 2008 interest for delay in compliance of the order under Section 17-B was also allowed.

5. The respondent workman having died, the award granting the relief of reinstatement alone cannot be implemented. Insofar as the award directed DTC to take a decision on the entitlement of the workman for back wages, the same has also not happened owing to the stay granted by the Court. However the writ petition has not become infructuous owing to the demise of the respondent workman. The question would remain as to whether the action of the DTC in deeming the respondent workman to have resigned is legal or not. If the said resignation is found to be legal and valid, the decision regarding back wages which the award directed the DTC to take will not be required to be taken and DTC would not be liable to pay any further amounts to the legal heirs of the workman than the entitlement under Section 17-B. However, if this petition fails, then not only will the DTC be required to take the decision regarding back wages from the date of deemed resignation till the date of the award but be also liable for emoluments post award till the date of demise of the workman; it is also informed that DTC also has a scheme of family pension and where-under the legal heirs of the workman would then also be entitled to pension.

6. The Clause 14(10)(c) where-under the petitioner DTC has deemed the respondent workman to have re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document