LPA No.468 of 2015

Page 1 of 4

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

LPA 468/2015

VIRENDER SINGH

..... Appellant

Represented by:

Mr.Arun K.Yadav, Advocate.

versus

M/S LANCER CONVENT SENIOR

SECONDARY SCHOOL

..... Respondents

Represented by:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Aggrieved by the order dated December 03, 2014 dismissing the writ

petition filed by the Appellant Virender Singh against an award passed by

the learned Tribunal awarding him compensation for a sum of `75,000/- in

lieu of reinstatement, back wages and other benefits, Virender Singh prefers

the present appeal.

2.

A brief exposition of the facts is that Virender Singh while working as

a driver was challaned under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(in short ‘the MV Act’) by the Delhi Traffic Police while he was driving Bus

No.DL 1P-5256 carrying students on September 24, 2007. Pursuant to show

cause notice a disciplinary inquiry was conducted. Finding him guilty the

Disciplinary Authority proposed to terminate his services. Approval of the

Director (Education) under Section 120 (2) of the Delhi School Education

Act and Rules, 1973 (in short ‘the DSE Act and Rules’) was sought and

pursuant thereto Virender Singh was dismissed from services.

2015:DHC:5956-DB

LPA No.468 of 2015

Page 2 of 4

3.

The Labour Court vide its order dated April 03, 2014 decided the

preliminary issue and held that the inquiry was conducted in a fair and legal

manner following the principles of natural justice. Vide award dated May

09, 2014 the decision of the Management to terminate the service of the

workman was also held to be legal and justified in view of the guidelines

laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 1998 (1) SCC

676 M.C.Mehta vs.Union of India and ors., for the reasons that a driver who

has been challaned once for offence of over-speeding/drunken driving and

driving dangerously or for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A

of the Indian Penal Code cannot be permitted to drive vehicle meant for

ferrying students. However, in view of a dispute raised by Virender Singh

for general demand and the termination having been directed without

approval in violation of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short ‘the ID Act’) the termination was held to be illegal and the

order of termination was set aside. The learned Labour Court however,

keeping in view the violation of the Supreme Court guidelines and other

factors held that no directions for reinstatement and back wages could be

passed and instead awarded a lump-sum compensation of `75,000/- in lieu

of reinstatement and back wages.

4.

The challenge to the award dated May 09, 2014 failed in W.P.(C)

No.8497/2014 wherein vide the impugned order the learned Single Judge

following the dicta of the Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta (Supra) held that no

direction to reinstatement and back wages could be passed and a lump-sum

compensation of `75,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages and

other benefits was sufficient relief and dismissed the writ petition.

5.

Before this Court learned counsel for the Appellant re-urges the same

2015:DHC:5956-DB

LPA No.468 of 2015

Page 3 of 4

grounds. In M.C.Mehta (Supra) the Supreme Court laid down the following

guidelines:

of the Indian Penal Code.”

6.

Though in the claim petition the Appellant had not brought out these

facts and had simply stated that in view of his earlier demands he has been

victimised and his services were terminated however, there is, no denial to

the fact that Virender Singh was challaned under Section 184 of the MV Act

by the Delhi Traffic Police while he was driving the school bus carrying

students on September 24, 2007 and had violated the guidelines laid down in

M.C.Mehta (Supra) and also the guidelines framed by the