Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 4487
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rekha Palli, J.
Delhi Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar – Respondent
W.P.(C) 5516 of 2023
Decided On : 10-05-2023
Mr.Aviral Saxena, S.C. with Mr.Abhinav Sharma, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Ms.Rashmi Priya with Mr.M.S.Pahal, Advocates, for the Respondent.
The delay in reinstating an employee, despite specific directions, may justify the grant of full back wages for the subsequent period.
Headnote:
Labour Court - Back Wages - Section 147(1) - [W.P.(C) 5516/2023] - The court discussed the Tribunal's directions under Section 147(1) and the petitioner's delay in reinstating the respondent, leading to the entitlement of full back wages for the subsequent period. The court found no infirmity in the Labour Court's award.
Fact of the Case:
The Delhi Transport Corporation filed a petition to challenge the Labour Court's award directing the payment of remaining 50% salary and consequential benefits to the respondent/workman for the period between 22.06.2016 to 31.05.2018.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's delay in reinstating the respondent deprived him of full wages for the subsequent period, justifying the Labour Court's decision to grant full back wages. The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to deduct the interest paid for the delayed payment of 50% back wages.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to direct the payment of remaining 50% back wages to the respondent, considering the Tribunal's earlier order and the petitioner's delay in reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's delay in reinstating the respondent, despite the Tribunal's directions, justified the Labour Court's decision to grant full back wages for the subsequent period. The court found no infirmity in the Labour Court's award.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to deduct the interest paid for the delayed payment of 50% back wages.
JUDGMENT
Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 21608/2023 -Ex.
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CAV 222/2023
3. Since the learned counsel for the respondent enters appearance, the caveat stands discharged.
W.P.(C) 5516/2023
4. The present petition preferred by the Delhi Transport Corporation seeks to assail the award dated 08.12.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court. Vide the impugned award, the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner to pay the remaining 50% salary of the respondent/workman w.e.f. 22.06.2016 to 31.05.2018 along with all consequential benefits.
5. The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent having been reinstated pursuant to an order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby only 50% back wages were directed to be paid to him, the learned Labour Court neither had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition nor could have passed any order directing the petitioner to pay the remaining 50% back wages, which direction is contrary to the order passed by the Tribunal which had attained finality.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, submits that while the respondent is not seeking any review of the order passed by the Tribunal on 10.05.2016, the petitioner, who was required to reinstate the respondent within a period of six weeks took almost more than two years to reinstate him on 01.06.2018. He submits that it is for this subsequent period of 23 months i.e. between 22.06.2016 to 31.05.2018, that the respondent has been granted full back wages by the learned Labour Court. This direction by the learned Labour Court, he contends was justified as the petitioner having wilfully delayed reinstating the respondent in accordance with the Tribunal's directions, must pay him full wages for this period of 23 months during which he remained out of service despite the Tribunal's order of reinstatement in his favour.
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to first note the relevant extracts of the Tribunal's decision dated 10.05.2016 on which both sides have placed heavy reliance. The same read as under:
"17. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA Is allowed and the Impugned order is quashed and the respondent-DTC is directed to act as per the provisions under Section 147(1) i.e. by reinstating him in an alternative post with the same pay scale, continuity of service, and other service benefits and In accordance with his capabilities, appropriate work be assigned within a period of six weeks from today. Since the petitioner was on probation and had not yet completed the period of probation of two years, therefore, the petitioner be put on probation as per the applicable; rules on the alternative post for the remaining period of probation under the respondent who shall further deal as per the rules. However, the petitioner has not worked as an employee of the respondent since the day on which he acquired the disability and, therefore, to meet the ends of justice, he shall be paid 50% of back-wages with due Increments within a period of twelve weeks from today. In the event of non-payment within twelve weeks, the DTC is liable to pay interest on that amount @9% p.a. till date of payment. No order as to costs."
8. In the light of these directions issued by the Tribunal requiring the petitioner to pay only 50% back wages to the respondent, the petitioner's plea that the Tribunal having directed payment of 50% back wages to the respondent, the Labour Court could not have directed payment of 100% back wages, on the first blush, appears to be attractive. However, on a closer scrutiny of the directions issued by the Tribunal show that the Tribunal had on 10.05.2016 granted only six weeks time to the petitioner to reinstate the responde
