Mr. Atul T.N., Mr. Manoj Nagar Mr. K. Pallavi, Advocates v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Judgment

1. This matter has been listed by the Registry specifically in the category of “Old/Targeted Cases” for the purpose of case management.

2. The present Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers: “(A) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the dues of an amount of Rs. 15,640,40/- as per the chart enclosed (ANNEXURE P-5) arising out of the award dated 16/07/2003 which was upheld by judgment dated 19/11/2015 passed in writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) NO. 16065/2004 and 16346/2004 and judgment dated 08/02/2016 passed in LPA NO. 82/2016 and 83/2016.”

This Court, after examining the record, on 02.04.2025, had prima facie noted the objection of the Respondent is that the petition in essence seeks directions to enforce an award, thus, the prayer in the present Petition is not maintainable.

4. Briefly the facts are that the Petitioner was employed as a conductor by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:02.09.2025 19:12:11 W.P.(C) 648/2020 the Respondent initially on a daily basis, and thereafter, brought on its payroll. On account of alleged misconduct, the Petitioner was removed from services leading the Petitioner to raise an industrial dispute. By award dated

16.07.2003, the learned Labour Court directed reinstatement of the Petitioner along with 50% back wages and continuity of service [hereinafter referred to as “Award”].

5. The Respondent filed two petitions before this court challenging the award, being W.P.(C) 16065/2004 and W.P.(C) 16346/2004, both captioned D.T.C. v. Ranbir Singh. Both these Petitions were dismissed by a common judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.11.2015 [hereinafter referred to as the “19.11.2015 Judgment”]. It was held by the Coordinate Bench that the award of 50% of the back wages is justified and that the Award did not suffer from any error. The relevant extract of the

19.11.2015 Judgment is set out below: “It is true that the initial burden is on the employee to prove that he was not gainfully employed during, period in question. In the instant case, learned counsel for respondent, on instructions from respondent who is present in the Court, apprised this Court that respondent owns just two bighas of land in Gohana (Haryana) and is merely earning ₹ 25,000/- per annum from the agricultural land and has two handicapped children to support and there is no other source of income. In such a situation, awarding of 50% of the back wages is fully justified. In the considered opinion of this Court, impugned orders do not suffer from any irrationality nor disclose any palpable error. Finding no substance in the above captioned two petitions, they are dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” [Emphasis Supplied]

6. The 19.11.2015 Judgment was challenged by the Respondent in LPA bearing Nos. LPA 82/2016 and LPA 83/2016. By a common order dated

08.02.2016, this challenge before the Division Bench by the Respondent was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:02.09.2025 19:12:11 W.P.(C) 648/2020 also dismissed. This had led to the filing of the present Petition. The relevant extract of the order dated 08.02.2016 is set out below: “7. The factual discussion would reveal that findings of the enquiry were, doubted by the Labour Court. This Court cannot find fault with that decision. The reliance placed by the DTC’s management upon the line of cross examination, appears on the surface, to be, convincing but really is not so. The Labour Court noticed that apart from the testimony of the two officials who were part of the checking staff, there was no other material either in the form of names of the passengers, or their statements, oh the record. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that with regard to the insufficiency of the materials on record, the concurrent findings bind the DTC. So far as the question of back wages is concerned, one is left wondering how the workman can prove that he was not gainfully employed, i.e., a negative. The Single Judge noticed that according to the DTC, the workman owned only a small patch of agricultural land and that though he perhaps earned some meagre form of income, he had two handicapped children to support. In the circumstances, therefore, the grant of 50% back wages was just and fair. We entirely concur with this exercise of discretion and hold that the appeals are meritless; they are accordingly dismissed.” [Emphasis Supplied]

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to rely upon a chart annexed as Annexure P-6 along with the Petition showing outstanding arrears of the Petitioner that are due.

8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, seeks to rely upon an Affidavit dated 05.02.2020, which was placed on record by the Petitioner stating that the Award has been complied with and that the total dues of the Respondent have already been paid. In addition, the Respondent has also filed a Short Affidavit/Counter Affidavit dated 22.10.2021 setting out that the benefits of ACP/MACP have also been paid to the Petitioner.

8.1 It is further stated that the Petitioner was reinstated on 04.07.2016 and that he resumed his duty on 14.07.2016. It sets out that all benefits and dues have already been paid. It is apposite to extract paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Short Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:02.09.2025 19:12:11 W.P.(C) 648/2020 Affidavit/Counter-Affidavit dated 22.10.2021 filed by the Respondent in this behalf, which is set out below: “5. It is submitted that the award has been complied with, the Petitioner has been reinstated with continuity of service, he has been paid 50% back-wages and also has been given the benefits of ACP/MACP as and when it became due. As per the award the Petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.10,13,112/- pursuant to order under section 17 B application, he was also paid 50% back-wages w.e.f 05.09.1994 to 31.01.2016 amounting to Rs.6,53,049/- on 13.10.2016 and later was paid the difference after Revision of Pay after grant of ACP/MACP benefits an amount of Rs. 9,00,157/- on 28.05.2019 for the entire period till reinstatement. The copy of calculation sheet is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R/1.

6. Further, the Petitioner vide affidavit dated 04.02.2020 has sought as follows: S.No. A. B. C. D. Particulars 50% salary not paid for the period 19.11.2015 to 14.07.2016 Interest on Rs. 653,049/- @ 12% from the period Nov. 2015 to Nov. 2016 (1 year) Paid on Nov. 2016 but was due and payable in Nov. 2015 Interest on Rs. 900,157/- @ 12% from the period Nov, 2015 to 14.06.2019 (31/2 years) Paid on 15.06.2019 but was due and payable in Nov 2015 the award 50% of the salary not paid from the date of reinstatement i.e. 16.07.2003 to 14.07.2016 Total outstanding Amount Rs. 175,198/- Rs. 78,366/- Rs. 378,006/- Rs. 14,11,541/- Rs. 21,91,113/- In reply to the above it is stated that the payments were made as under: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:02.09.2025 19:12:11 W.P.(C) 648/2020 Particulars Bill Period Court attachment/ section 17B After 50% wages 05.09.94- 31.01.16 50% revised ACP/MACP

05.09.94- 31.01.201 9

31.07.09- 16.06.11 Amount Date of payment/ Amount interest @6% 10,13,112/- NA Amount with interest

13.10.16 6,53,049/- 35,918/- 688,967/-

14.06.19 900,157/-

19.11.15 - 13.10.16 11 months 193,535/- 19.11.15 - 14.06.19 (3 yrs 7 months) 10,93,692/- Total 25,66,318/- 27,95,771/- A. The Petitioner was reinstated with immediate effect vide letter dated 04.07.2016, however, he resumed duty on 14.07.2016 for reasons best known to him. Further in terms of the award he was paid 50% back-wages from the date of removal till reinstatement as submitted hereinabove and hence nothing is due and payable to him in that regard and nothing muchless Rs. 1,75,198/- is due and outstanding. Further, this component is demanded twice over as evident from demand at column D above. B. The Petitioner is not entitled to any interest muchless Rs. 78,366/. It is submitted that the Respondent after passing of the award availed of the remedies available under law by filing a Writ Petition as also LPA and also paid all payments in terms of the award. Further, there is no direction whatsoever to pay any interest. C. The workman was paid the difference of ACP/MACP on revised scales amounting to Rs. 900,157/- as and when it became due after the dismissal of LPA and his reinstatement. Thus there is no entitlement to any interest, further there was no such direction to pay any interest. D. The Petitioner was paid 50% back-wages as per the award and nothing remains any further to be paid to the Petitioner.” [Emphasis supplied] Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:02.09.2025 19:12:11 W.P.(C) 648/2020

9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has also submitted in its Short Affidavit/Counter-Affidavit dated 22.10.2021 that a total sum of Rs.27,95,771/- inclusive of interest has been paid to the Petitioner and which includes interest as well. He further submits that the Petitioner is not entitled to any interest since there is no direction for payment of interest. Lastly, it is contended that nothing further remains to be paid to the Petitioner.

10. As stated above, what the Petitioner is seeking before this Court is to enforcement of the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench as well as the Division Bench of this Court.

11. This Court in the judgment of Sh. Ved Prakash v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, while examining a similar issue, relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Namer Ali Choudhury and Ors. v. The Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr.2 and Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank v. Neelam3 to dismiss a similar claim with the liberty to the Workman to take appropriate remedies before the learned Labour Court.

11.1 It was held therein that the provisions of Sections 11(9) as well as Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as the “ID Act”] provide for an alternative remedy for filing petitions before the learned Labour Court or the Civil Court. This Court in the Ved Prakash case has held as follows: “16. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the remedy for non- compliance or non-action of an award or judgment lies before the present Court by filing of a fresh writ petition in accordance with the T.N. State Corporation case. However, this contention is without any merit.