High CourtsSingle Bench(2009) 12 DEL CK 0048

DTC vs Laxman Singh

Delhi High Court · Decided on 4 December 2009

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.N. Dhingra, J
CASE NUMBER
C.M. 13976 of 2008 in Writ Petition (C) 21255 of 2005

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 390 words

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—This Court vide order dated 18th October 2006 directed the petitioner to pay the amount equivalent to last drawn wages/minimum wages to respondent from the date of filing the present writ petition till disposal u/s 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act. The present application has been moved by the petitioner u/s 151 of CPC for modification of the order dated 18th October 2006. The petitioner has prayed that under the directions of this Court, the petitioner was to pay the last drawn/minimum wages whichever was higher to respondent. The management of petitioner vide its resolution dated 13th August 2008, in the wake of policy decision taken by the competent authority, is prepared to pay the minimum wages to respondent however, the respondent should work with the petitioner in lieu of the wages being received. It is stated that this will not prejudice the rights of the workman and the workman would not be getting money from the petitioner without work. A prayer was made to the Court that the workman should be directed to report for duty.

2.

The workman during arguments has stated that he was prepared to join duty if he was paid wages equivalent to other workmen in the same category.

3.

The petitioner has drawn my attention to the order dated 15th April 2004 whereby this Court had observed that since the respondent has been offered reinstatement and he was not accepting the same, he cannot be given benefit u/s 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4.

Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act was incorporated in the statute so that the workman, during the period he contests the petition, does not face hardships of having no work and he is paid allowance under the directions of the Court at the same rate he was drawing his last drawn wages or the minimum wages whichever is higher. In view of this legislative intent, I consider that the workman cannot refuse to join duty while drawing allowances which is a sort of unemployment allowance.

5.

In the result, I modify the order and the petitioner is directed to pay the minimum wages /last drawn wages to the workman on his joining duty and working with the establishment of petitioner, from the date he joins the duties.

6.

The review application stands disposed of with above order.