CWP (T) No. 3204 of 2008 6.8.2010 Present:- Mr. Rajesh Verma, vice Mr. Surinder Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, DAG for respondent No.2. The petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:- i) That the impugned Annexures: A-I, A-2, A-3 & A-4, dated 8.1.93, 5.3.93, 7.5.93 & 27.3.96 respectively may be quashed and set aside; ii) That the respondents may be directed to implement the various provisions of the Motor Transport Workers’ Act, 1961 and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder in letter and spirit; iii) That the respondent No.1 may be directed to calculate the hours of work as per Section 13 read with Sections 15, 16 & 17 and taking into consideration the definition of the word “Running Time” as per the Motor Transport Workers’ Act, 1961; iv) That the respondent No.1 may be directed to calculate the payment of overtime wages as per the provisions of the Act and not on the basis of Annexure: A-I, A-2 & A-3 in an illegal and arbitrary manner; v) That the respondent No.1 may be directed to pay to the workers the arrears of D.A. on the overtime and I.R. w.e.f. 1.1.1986 onwards; vi) That the respondents may be directed to constitute a High-Powered Committee to conduct the survey of all the routes, on which the buses are being plied by the respondent Corporation, for framing of the time-tables taking into consideration the over all welfare of the Society and the crew members. 2. The petitioner earlier filed O.A. No. 221/95 and vide order dated, 6.3.1995, the erstwhile Tribunal had directed that said O.A. be treated as a representation to the Board of Directors of respondents-Corporation. The petitioner vide communication, dated 27.3.1996, Annexure A-4, was informed that Board of Directors had considered the representation in its meeting held on 12.3.1996 and had rejected the same except that the HRTC should start a special campaign for regulating the weekly rests so as to bring it to the barest minimum. No reasons have been given in the communication, dated 27.3.1996, Annexure A-4, while rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner has raised several issues in the petition. I am of the opinion that the issues raised by the petitioner in the petition, at the first instance, are to be considered by respondent No.1 by due application of mind. It appears that this was the intention of the Tribunal when it ordered on 6.3.1995 to treat the application as a representation and directed the Board of Directors of the Corporation to decide the same. But, the representation of the petitioner has been decided by a non- speaking order. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has stated that grievance of the petitioner can again be considered by respondent No.1 in accordance with law. In these circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation to respondent No.1 regarding its grievance raised in the petition within 4 weeks from today and in case, such representation is made, then respondent No.1 shall decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order within further 3 months from the date of receipt of representation along with copy of this judgment. The petition stands disposed of. August 6, 2010 (Kuldip Singh) (pankaj) Judge