Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sho Ram

Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Divya Aggarwal, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Ms. Kritika Matta & Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J U D G M E N T HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. 1. The Appellant/Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “DTC”) has preferred these appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent Appeal, impugning the common Judgment dated

19.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in cross Writ Petitions bearing W.P.(C) No. 2081/2012 and W.P.(C) No.1614/2013 titled as “Sho Ram v. DTC” and “Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sho Ram” respectively, whereby the Respondent herein/workman (hereinafter referred to as “workman”). was granted full back wages, between the date of his termination i.e., 24.03.1988 till the date of his superannuation, being 31.01.2012. 2. The original industrial dispute pertained to the validity of the action of the DTC in terminating the services of the workman. The Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts (hereinafter referred to as Signature Not Verified LPA 690/2018 & 707/2018 Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:25:39 “the Tribunal”), vide the award dated 19.12.2011, answered the reference in favour of the workman holding that the workman’s termination of service was illegal and unjustifiable; but despite that, the Tribunal did not grant him any relief on the ground that the workman rejected the offer of the DTC to join duty along with 50% back wages in the year 1990. Aggrieved by the award dated

19.12.2011, both parties had filed writ petitions and now, after the impugned order, have emanated to present appeals before this Court. 3. The learned Single Judge vide the Impugned Judgment, while upholding the aspect of the illegal termination, in addition, has also held that the workman was entitled to full back wages from the date of his termination to the date of his superannuation, and thus, entitled to the retiral benefits as well. 4. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellant seeks to challenge the same, primarily urging that: (a) setting aside of the termination order of the workman, after lapse of 18 years, is barred by time, and (b) the workman was given an offer in the year 1990 to join the services with 50% back wages, on the same terms and conditions, as the other workmen, who were also terminated, despite which this workman did not re-join the service.

5. To bolster these arguments further, the Appellant placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balbir Signature Not Verified LPA 690/2018 & 707/2018 Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:11.03.2025 10:25:39 Singh vs. Punjab Roadways1 and Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank vs. Neelam2. BRIEF FACTS: 6. The Respondent-workman was employed as a Conductor with the DTC. After raising certain demands and not receiving a resolution, the Respondent-workman and his colleagues (other workmen) began an indefinite strike at midnight on 16.03.1988. However, on the same day, the DTC closed the gates of all establishments. 7. The workmen preferred a Suit No. 583/1988 before this Court, wherein vide judgment dated 21.03.1988, the DTC was directed to permit willing workers to return to discharge their duties. However, by that date, the DTC had already terminated the services of the employees including the Respondent-workman as well. 8. The Respondent-workman filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). However, the authorized representative appearing on behalf of the workman, made an erroneous statement before the Tribunal that the workman had been reinstated by the DTC, resulting in a no- dispute award on 04.04.1992. An application filed by the workman for setting aside the said award, was also withdrawn. 9. Subsequent thereto, the workman filed a fresh complaint bearing number 87/1996 before the Tribunal on the ground that the