The principle of 'No Work No Pay' does not apply if an employee is wrongfully terminated and prevented from working, entitling them to reinstatement and potentially full back wages.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred against the award dated 22.4.2008 ("the impugned award") passed by the Labour Court-VI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No.19/2005. Vide the impugned award, the learned labour court ordered petitioner- corporation to reinstate the respondent with payment of 50% of the back wages.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF DISPUTE

2. The facts of the case as incorporated by the petitioner in its writ petition is that the respondent was appointed as a driver with petitioner on 29.05.1984. On 03.07.2000, the respondent was consigned with the duty of driving Bus bearing no. DEP-6106 to Sonipat at about 1400 hours from D.T.C. Dichaon Kalan Depot, New Delhi. While in the bus depot, respondent drove the said vehicle allegedly in a rash and negligent manner and struck the same into a stationary bus bearing no. DEP -9506 which was parked in the yard. Due to the high hitting impact, one of the employees who were working/repairing the stationary bus bearing no. DEP -9506, Shri Ishwar Singh, Assistant Fitter ("the deceased") received grievous injury and died on the spot. Subsequently, a criminal case vide FIR no. 346/2000 dated 03.07.2000 at P.S. Najafgarh u/s 279/304-A IPC was initiated against the respondent.

3. On receipt of report no. 369390 dated 03.07.2000 from Shri. Mahender Singh T.I., respondent was placed under suspension vide letter dated 04.07.2000. Further, a charge sheet dated 04.07.2000, was issued to the respondent for the above- mentioned irregularity. A disciplinary inquiry was conducted to investigate into the charges levelled upon respondent. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority holding the charges proved against him.

4. In pursuance to the enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 16.08.2000 was issued by the depot manager to the respondent as to why he be not removed from the services. The respondent challenged the said show cause before this Court in W.P. (C ) No. 4718 of 2000. Vide order dated 25.08.2000, this court was pleased to grant a stay of further action till the disposal of his pending appeal. Later, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with directions to the respondent to file the reply to the show cause notice.

5. On 11.06.2001, the petitioner corporation-imposed punishment of `removal from service' upon the respondent. Aggrieved by the aforesaid removal, the respondent raised the industrial dispute before the conciliation officer, Delhi which resulted in failure. Govt. of NCT of Delhi referred the said industrial dispute for adjudication with the following terms of reference:

"Whether Sh. Suraj Mal S/o Late Sh.Kanshi Ram has been removed from services illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, if so to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential relief along with consequential in terms of existing law/Govt. Notification and to what other relief he entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect. ?"

6. The respondent filed his statement of claim on 28.01.2005 before the learned Labour court, wherein he alleged that enquiry conducted against him was improper and against principles of natural justice. Also, that petitioner is bound by the law of estoppel since it has earlier taken position before the learned Labour court that respondent was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Petitioner herein filed its written statement wherein it defended itself by submitting that the decision of manage