LPA 731/2019

Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 16^th February, 2021.

+

LPA 731/2019

CHATTAR SINGH

..... Appellant

Through:

Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Adv.

Versus

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

..... Respondent

Through:

Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Ms. Tania

Ahlawat and Mr. Nitesh Kumar

Singh, Advs. for DTC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CM No.50412/2019 (for condonation of 64 days delay in filing appeal)

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 64 days in filing

the appeal is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of.

LPA No.731/2019

3. The appeal impugns the common judgment dated 13^th August, 2019 in

W.P.(C) 5070/2013 preferred by the appellant and in W.P.(C) 2059/2014

preferred by the respondent Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), both with

respect to the Award dated 13^th March, 2013 of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal (CGIT).

2021:DHC:567-DB

LPA 731/2019

Page 2 of 10

4. The appeal came up first before this Court on 22^nd November, 2019

and vide subsequent order dated 4^th December, 2019, notice thereof was

ordered to be issued. The counsels were heard on 8^th February, 2021 and

have been further heard today.

5. The undisputed facts are, (i) the appellant was in the employment of

the respondent DTC, as a Driver, since the year 1974; (ii) in February, 1982,

the appellant absented from duty and the respondent DTC, deemed the

appellant to have resigned, under Regulation 14(10)(c) of the Delhi Road

Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations,

1952; (iii) the appellant approached the respondent DTC to join back but the

respondent DTC refused to take him on duty; (iv) the respondent DTC, vide

letter dated 30^th March, 1983 agreed to take the appellant on duty, albeit as a

daily wager; (v) the appellant again absented and was not taken back on

duty; (vi) the appellant raised an Industrial Dispute and the following

Industrial Dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to the CGIT:

(vii) the CGIT, vide Award dated 15^th December, 1999, directed

reinstatement of the appellant, but qua back wages, reasoning that the

appellant had taken four years from framing of issues, for filing affidavit,

awarded only 25% of the back wages to the appellant; (viii) the respondent

DTC preferred W.P.(C) 4336/2000 impugning the said Award but the said

writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 27^th November, 2001, in terms

of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Om Kumar (2002) 95 DLT 425,

2021:DHC:567-DB

LPA 731/2019

Page 3 of 10

holding Regulation 14(10)(c) supra to be bad; (ix) the aforesaid judgment

attained finality; (x) the appellant raised another Industrial Dispute and the

following reference was made by the appropriate Government:

(xi) that the aforesaid Industrial Dispute was decided vide the Award dated

13^th March, 2013; the CGIT, in the said Award, recorded (a) that the

respondent DTC, in spite of earlier Award dated 15^th December, 1999 and

dismissal on 27^th November, 2001 of C.W.P No.4336/2000 preferred there

against, did not reinstate the appellant or pay him the 25% back wages; (b)

that the appellant moved an application under Section 33C(1) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for implementation of the Award; (c) that the

amount of wages till the date of the Award were paid by the respondent

DTC to the appellant in the said implementation proceedings but the

appellant was not reinstated in service till 1^st January, 2003; (d) that the

appellant resumed duty on 1^st January, 2003 but was being paid wages on a

daily basis; (e) that the appellant represented, that he was entitled to wages

as a regular employee and not as a daily wager,