Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, Adv v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Judgment

1. The present Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers: “I. Directing the respondents to pay the amount of dues which had been paid to the petitioner under Section 17B of the I.D. Act during the pendency of the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.6200/2002; and II. Further directing the Respondent to refund and repay the compound interest charged by the Respondent on the original gratuity amount computed and paid as on the date of illegal termination of his services; and III. Interest be paid to the petitioner on the delayed payment of the said amounts including the illegal deductions of the amount computed as on date of supplantation [sic : superannuation] of the petitioner.”

2. Briefly the facts are that the Petitioner was appointed with the Respondent at the post of Assistant Fitter. The Petitioner was removed from services on 07.01.1993, pursuant to a chargesheet issued against the Petitioner on 05.08.1992. This led to the Respondent filing an Application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:19.08.2025 17:48:03 W.P.(C) 2287/2021 referred to as the “ID Act”] seeking approval of the termination. By an order dated 27.03.2002 in O.P. No. 12/93 captioned as Delhi Transport

Corporation v. Shri Ved Prakash, the Application seeking approval of termination of the Petitioner by the Respondent was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal.

3. However, since the Petitioner was not allowed to join services by the Respondent nor were the backwages paid to him, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing a Petition being W.P.(C) 6200/2002 captioned Ved Prakash v. D.T.C.

3.1 The order dated 27.03.2002 was also challenged by the Respondent by filing W.P.(C) 7536/2002 captioned DTC v. Ved Prakash & Ors. Both these Petitions were disposed of by separate judgments of a Coordinate Bench of this Court, each dated 25.10.2018.

4. By the judgment dated 25.10.2018 passed in W.P.(C) 6200/2002, the Coordinate Bench had directed that the Petitioner shall be entitled to full backwages and all consequential benefits. It is apposite to set out the findings of the judgment dated 25.10.2018 [hereinafter referred to as the “25.10.2018 Judgment”] in this behalf below: “20. In view of this discussion, the petitioner shall be entitled to full backwages and consequential benefits in such manner as the order of his dismissal from the service was never passed. Same be paid to the workman within two months, failing which interest@ 12% p.a. shall be payable to the workman.”

5. The judgment dated 25.10.2018 passed in W.P.(C) 7536/2002 dismissed the challenge by the Respondent holding that the evidence cannot be appreciated by this Court in a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:19.08.2025 17:48:03 W.P.(C) 2287/2021

6. The record reflects that after the 25.10.2018 Judgment, the Petitioner filed a fresh writ petition in W.P. (C) No. 1988/2020 captioned Ved Prakash v. Delhi Transport Corporation seeking consequential service and retirement benefits, including arrears, pension, gratuity, and interest thereon.

6.1 By an order dated 24.02.2020 [hereinafter referred to as “24.02.2020 Order”], the Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said Petition directing the Respondent to furnish the requisite computation in terms of the Award. It is apposite to set out the directions given under the 24.02.2020 Order herein below: “Issue notice. The learned counsel named above accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. At joint request, the petition is taken up for disposal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that computation in terms of the Award is yet to be furnished to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition be treated as a representation by the DTC and appropriate communication, including the requisite computation, shall be furnished to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today. The petition, alongwith pending application, stands disposed-off in the above terms.” [Emphasis Supplied]

7. The record further reflects that upon Respondent’s failure to comply with the 24.02.2020 Order, the Petitioner filed a contempt petition being Contempt Case (C) No. 750/2020 captioned Ved Prakash v. Vijay Kumar Vidhuri seeking compliance of the 24.02.2020 Order. This contempt petition was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench’s order dated 13.01.2021 by recording the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent has complied with the 24.02.2020 Order, in the following manner: “... 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner states, upon instructions, that the order dated 24.02.2020 has been complied with. He, however, seeks and is granted liberty to agitate his other rights which may remain Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:19.08.2025 17:48:03 W.P.(C) 2287/2021 unaddressed. 2. The petition, along with pending application, is disposed-off in terms of the above…” [Emphasis Supplied]

8. So far as concerns Prayer I above, it seeks a direction to the Respondent to make payment of the dues which had been paid during the pendency of the Petition W.P.(C) 6200/2002 under Section 17-B of the ID Act. Thus, and admittedly, prayer I of the Petition seeks payment of wages. The remaining prayers are for repayment of compound interest charged on the gratuity paid and for interest on delayed payment and other reliefs.

9. In essence, what the Petitioner is seeking before this Court is to enforce an order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to rely upon paragraph 4 of the 25.10.2018 Judgment which cites T.N. State Transport Corporation v. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam1 to submit that in a case where the Tribunal refuses to accord approval to the action taken by the employer and rejects the petition filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the “I.D. Act”] on merits, the employer is bound to treat the employee as continuing in service and give him full back wages and all the consequential benefits. Concededly, this aspect of the matter has already been dealt with by the 25.10.2018 Judgement wherein, consequential benefits have been granted as is referred to in paragraph 4 above.

11. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submits that the full payment of backwages and wages in terms of the orders passed by 1 2001 (9) SCC 99. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:19.08.2025 17:48:03 W.P.(C) 2287/2021 this Court, from time to time, have been made and a sum of Rs.10,31,305/- has already been paid to the workman. It is further stated that the computation sheet has also been handed to the workman so far as concerns this payment of gratuity, pay fixation and settlement amounts on 19.11.2020 which has led to the disposal of the Contempt case No.750/2020 filed by the Petitioner. Thus, it is contended that the entire backwages from the date of the termination till the date of superannuation have already been paid and the prayer I no longer survive.

11.1 It is further contended that qua prayers II and III, the gratuity of the Petitioner was calculated as per his length of service and the amount of gratuity paid earlier was adjusted and after adjusting the payments already made, the net payment amount being Rs.83,232/- was also paid to the Petitioner on 31.05.2019. In addition, bonus in the sum of Rs.56,017/- was also paid on 19.11.2020. Learned Counsel for the Respondent thus submits that in view of the fact that the Petitioner has already been paid his full amounts, the prayers in the Petition stand satisfied. The relevant extract of the Counter Affidavit with these affirmations stating these averments is reproduced below: "1… The Hon'ble court passed the award continuity of service with full back wages in ID case. DTC Moves to the High Court against the ID award and deposited a sum of Rs.6,03,487/- vide cheque No. 974461 dated 01.07.2005 The Hon’ble High Court directed to this corporation for payment of 17(b) wages w.e.f. Jan 2009. Now the case has been decided in High Court in favour of the workman and he is entitled to full back wages and consequential benefits. The full payment of back wages Rs. 1031305/- has been paid to the workman. Further, the applicant moved to Hon’ble High Court against not comply the order dated 24.02.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 1988/2020 & CM Appeal 6947/2020 as computation shall be furnished to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks. Again he filled the Cont. Cas(C) 750/2020 and CM Appeal 29400/2020. Due to Covid -19 the lock down was announced by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:19.08.2025 17:48:03 W.P.(C) 2287/2021 the Delhi Government and due to this the above said order was delayed for compile but now the computation sheet has been handed over to the workman vide No. RHN-II/PFC(W)/Court Case/2020/2643 dated 19.11.2020, Payment of Gratuity vide No. RHNII/Settlement/2020/2644 dated 19.11.2020, Pay fixation computation sheet part II vide No. RHN-II/PFC(W)/2020/2645 dated 19.11.2020 and Pay fixation computation sheet part II vide No. RHN-II/PFC(W)/2020/2646 dated 19.11.2020 against his signature. The Cont. Cas(C) 750/2020 and CM Appeal 29400/2020 has been disposed off on dated 13.01.2021. PARAWISE REPLY:

12.The petitioner was moved to the Labour Court against his removal. The Hon’ble court passed the award continuity of service with full back wages in ID case. DTC moves to the High Court against the 10 award and deposited a sum of Rs. 6,03,487/- vide cheque No. 974461 dated 01.07.2005 The Hon’ble High Court directed to this corporation for payment of 17(b) wages w.e.f. Jan 2009. Now the case has been decided in High Court in favour of the workman and he is entitled to full back wages and consequential benefits. The full payment of back wages Rs. 1031305/- has been paid to the workman. The gratuity amounting Rs. 83232/- has been paid to workman after deduction the gratuity already been paid to workman Rs. 310752/-. Further the pension of workman has started w.e.f. Feb 2013.

17. It is wrong 85 denied because, the full payment of back wages Rs. 1031305/- has been paid to the workman. The gratuity amounting Rs. 83232/- has been paid to workman after deduction the gratuity already been paid to workman Rs. 310752/-, the computation sheet has been handed over the workman vide No. RHN-II/PFC(W)/Court Case/2020/2643 dated 19.11.2020, Further the pension of workman has started w.e.f. Feb 2013.” [Emphasis Supplied]

11.2 In any event, it is contended that wages paid under Section 17-B are a subsistence allowance which have to be adjusted while giving full wages if a workman is exonerated.

12. As stated above, the prayer I of the present Petition is seeking a direction to pay the amounts due which had to be paid during the pendency of the Petition W.P.(C) 6200/2002 under Section 17-B of the ID Act. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:19.08.2025 17:48:03 W.P.(C) 2287/2021 Section 17-B of the ID Act provides that where a Labour Court directs reinstatement and the employer challenges it before the High Court (or the Supreme Court), the employer shall during the pendency of such proceedings, pay full wages as last drawn by him, unless it is shown by the workman that he was gainfully employed.

12.1 It is apposite to extract provisions of Section 17-B of the ID Act below: “17B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts.— Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court: Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be.”

13. The Supreme Court in D.N. Krishnappa v. Deputy General Manager2 has held that a workman shall be entitled to the full wages from the date of order of reinstatement after deducting the amount already paid under Section 17B of the ID Act. The relevant extract of the D.N. Krishnappa case is below:

18. It is the case on behalf of the bank that as the award dated 18.07.2007 of reinstatement passed by the CGIT was stayed by the High Court and continued to be stayed till 12.09.2013, the appellant shall not be entitled to the wages from the date of award dated 18.07.2007. It is also the case on behalf of the respondent - bank that award dated 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1709 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:19.08.2025 17:48:03 W.P.(C) 2287/2021

18.07.2007 ultimately merges with the judgment and order dated 12.07.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and therefore, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court would be enforceable on the principle of merger. It is also the case on behalf of the bank that during the pendency of the stay of the order of reinstatement dated 18.07.2007, the appellant was paid the last drawn wages under Section 17B of the ID Act, the appellant shall not be entitled to any further wages/back wages from the date of the award of reinstatement dated 18.07.2007 to the final judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 12.07.2013.

22. Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the bank that as during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court and for the period during the stay of order of reinstatement, the appellant was paid the last drawn wages under Section 17B of the ID Act and therefore he is not entitled to any wages for the period during the stay is concerned, there is no substance. At the most, whatever is held to be entitled to pay the appellant - employee as wages from the order of award of reinstatement till actual reinstatement, whatever is paid under Section 17B of the ID Act, the same is to be deducted and/or adjusted.

24. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent - bank and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the CGIT under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act directing the bank to pay the wages from 18.07.2007 to 23.09.2013 is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. It is held that the appellant shall be entitled to the full wages with all emoluments from the date of order of reinstatement i.e., 18.07.2007 to the date of actual reinstatement i.e., 23.09.2013, however, after adjusting/deducting the amount already paid under Section 17B of the ID Act. Present appeal is allowed accordingly to the aforesaid extent. No costs.” [Emphasis Supplied]

14. The only contention raised by the Petitioner is that the amounts paid under Section 17-B of the ID Act by way of subsistence allowance were illegally deducted and that this deduction did not form part of the directions contained in the 25.10.2018 Judgment. Thus, the deduction was illegal. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:19.08.2025 17:48:03 W.P.(C) 2287/2021

15. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dilip Mani Dubey v. Siel Limited & Anr.3 to submit that the amounts paid during the pendency of the Petition under Section 17- B of the ID Act have to be paid to the Petitioner.

15.1 The Supreme Court in the Dilip Mani case has, while directing that the payments made to a workman pursuant to an order passed under Section 17-B of the ID Act, held that the amounts received during the litigation were not required to be returned to the employer. The Supreme Court also gave a finding that the employer will have no rights to recover the amounts already paid to the workman and it was in that context that the Court held that the proceedings under Section 17-B of the ID Act are independent of the main proceedings. The relevant extract of the Dilip Mani case is below: “13. We, however, find that the High Court despite setting aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal, rightly directed that whatever amount, which has so far been paid to the appellant workman by Respondent 1 employer in compliance with the order passed under Section 17-B of the ID Act proceedings during pendency of the litigation, the same will not be recoverable from the appellant on the strength of the impugned order. According to the learned counsel for Respondent 1 employer, this amount is quite a substantial one and is more than Rupees two lakhs. Be that as it may.

14. Such direction issued by the High Court against Respondent 1 employer, in our view, is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in that behalf. Indeed, this Court has held that the proceedings under Section 17-B of the ID Act are independent proceedings in nature and are not dependent upon the final order passed in the main proceedings.

15. It is ruled that if the court/tribunal, eventually upholds the termination order as being legal against the workman, yet the employer will have no right to recover the amount already paid by him to the delinquent workman pursuant to order passed under Section 17-B of the ID Act during pendency of these proceedings (see Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel [Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel, (1999) 2 SCC 3 (2019) 4 SCC 534 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:19.08.2025 17:48:03 W.P.(C) 2287/2021