WPC 9301/04, 1502/05 & 12438/05 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) Nos.9301/2004, 1502/2005 & 12438/05 % 12th January, 2011 1. W.P.(C) No.9301/2004 SHRI CHAND RAM ...... Petitioner Through: None. VERSUS D.T.C. & ANOTHER ...... Respondents Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Mayank Joshi, Advocate. 2.W.P.(C) No.1502/2005 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ........Petitioner Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Mayank Joshi, Advocate. VERSUS SHRI CHAND RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH L.R.s . .......Respondents Through: None 3.W.P.(C) No.12438/05 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ........Petitioner Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Mayank Joshi, Advocate. VERSUS SHRI CHAND RAM .......Respondent Through: None. CORAM: WPC 9301/04, 1502/05 & 12438/05 Page 2 of 4 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) W.P.(C) Nos.1502/2005 and 12438/05 1. In Writ Petition (C) No.1502/05 challenge is laid to the order dated 24.12.02 passed by the Industrial Tribunal rejecting the application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In W.P.(C) No.12438/05 challenge has been laid to the Award dated 10.2.2004 whereby the workman has been directed to be reinstated in service with payment of back wages and consequential benefits. Counsel for the petitioner states that the workman has expired about two years back on 10.2.2009 and the issue will now only remain of monetary claim. 2. It has been held by a learned Single Judge of this Court (Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.) in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shyam Lal in W.P.(C) No.3633/04 decided on 1.7.2010 reported as Manu/DE/1634/2010 after reviewing various earlier judgments, that the main adjudication with respect to termination takes place in industrial dispute which is raised by the workman and the decision which is rendered on an application under Section 33(2)(b) is only a WPC 9301/04, 1502/05 & 12438/05 Page 3 of 4 prima facie adjudication and which does not bind the Labour Court which decides the main industrial dispute raised by the workman against his termination. In the present case, it is seen that when in the main industrial adjudication challenging the termination, the Award dated 10.2.2004 (which is challenged in W.P.(C) No.12438/05) has been passed, in the same however there is no adjudication on merits which should have been there and instead reliance in sum and substance is placed in the Award for arriving at the decision only on the dismissal of the application under Section 33(2)(b). On the other hand the order dated 24.12.2002 under Section 33(2)(b) which was to grant or deny approval for termination though in law was required to be passed deciding the issue whether the termination is on account of victimization of the workman and not by adjudicating the merits on detail, however, this is not so and which adjudication is de hors the issue of victimization. Accordingly, in terms of the decision in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shyam Lal the impugned Award dated 10.2.2004 is set aside for adjudication on merits and disposal in accordance with law. The order dated 24.12.2002 is also set aside and the application under Section 33 (2)(b) should be decided in view of the parameters as set out in the decision in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shyam Lal. 3. The cases are therefore remanded back to the Labour WPC 9301/04, 1502/05 & 12438/05 Page 4 of 4 Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. It is desirable that decision in both the cases is rendered by the same Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and the said Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal will make every endeavour to dispose of the cases within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the present order. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this Court should direct decision of the cases by the Labour Court. It is accordingly ordered that both these cases will be decided by one Labour Court. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. C.M.No.9152/05 in W.P.(C) No.12438/05 C.M. No.1172/05 in W.P.(C) No.1502/05 Interim orders stand vacated. Applications stand disposed of. C.M. No.14066/08 in W.P.(C) No.1502/05 No orders are required to be passed in this application which is disposed of as such. W.P.(C) No.9301/2004 This petition is disposed of with the liberty to apply afresh to this Court if there is a fresh Award against the management and in favour of the workman/his legal heirs. JANUARY 12, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J Ne