JUDGMENT :

[Gaurang Kanth, J.]

1. This Court, proposes to dispose the following two writ petitions, vide the present common Judgment:

(i) W.P(C) No.6347/2006 titled as DTC Vs Rameshwar Dayal. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner management is challenging the Award dated 31.05.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, New Delhi in ID No.102 of 2001 titled as The Management of Delhi Transport Corporation and its Workman Rameshwar Dayal (Impugned Award-I)

(ii) W.P (C) No. 2631/2007 titled as Rameshwar Dayal through his legal heirs Vs DTC. In this Writ Petition, the Respondent Workman is challenging the Award dated 21.02.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkadooma Courts, Delhi in O.P No. 28/1992 titled as The Management of Delhi Transport Corporation and its workman Rameshwar Dayal (Impugned Award-II)

2. The Petitioner/Management terminated the service of the Respondent/Workman vide letter dated 17.01.1992 after conducting a domestic enquiry. At that time, a dispute between the Petitioner/Management and its Workmen relating to the implementation of the 4th Pay Commission report was pending before the learned Labour Court. Hence the Petitioner/Management filed an Approval Application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“I.D. Act”) before the learned Labour Court seeking the permission of the learned Labour Court to terminate the service of the Respondent/Workman. Learned Labour Court vide Award dated 24.02.2001 dismissed the said approval Application and denied the permission to the Petitioner/Management. The Petitioner/Management challenged the said Award dated 24.02.2001 before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5860/2001. This Court vide order dated 17.11.2005 allowed the said Writ Petition and remanded the matter back to the learned Labour Court for fresh adjudication. In the meanwhile, the Respondent/Workman vide separate proceedings raised an Industrial Dispute, ID No.101/2001 challenging his termination. Learned Labour Court vide Impugned Award-I held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Petitioner/Management was vitiated and hence directed the Petitioner/Management for the reinstatement of the Respondent/Workman with back wages and continuity of service. It appears that the factum of the Impugned Award-I was not disclosed to this Court or Labour Court -II which was dealing with the approval Application (OP 28/1992) after the same was remanded back from this Court. Hence vide Impugned Award-II dated 21.02.2007, learned Labour Court-II held that the Respondent/Workman is guilty of misconduct and granted permission to the Petitioner/Management to proceed with the termination order. The Petitioner/Management is aggrieved by the Impugned Award-I whereas the Respondent/Workman is aggrieved by the Impugned Award-II.

3. It is also pertinent to mention here that after the passing of the impugned Award-I, the Petitioner/Management was not implementing the Impugned Award-I. Hence the Respondent/Workman filed W.P(C) No. 18476/2004 before this Court, praying, inter alia, for the implementation of the Impugned Award-1. This Court had taken up all the 3 Writ Petitions together and vide order dated 09.04.2010, directed, inter alia, as follows:

“W.P.(C) 18476/2004 was preferred by the deceased workman seeking direction for his reinstatement with the DTC subsequent to the dismissal by the Labour Court of the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act preferred by the DTC. However, DTC had challenged the rejection of the application under Section 33(2)(b) and that writ petition was allowed and the matter remanded. The Labour Court on remand has allowed the Section 33(2)(b) application and which order has now been challenged by the workman in WP(C) 2631/2007. In the circumstances, WP(C) No. 18476/2004 filed by the workman claiming reinstatement has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. However, the file of the same be tagged to the file of the other t