Delhi District Court
Om Prakash vs Dtc on 16 September, 2025
POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
POIT No. 898/2016
CNR No. DLCT13-001083-2010
Om Prakash
S/o Shri Tara Chand,
(Through his Legal Representatives)
Smt Parvesh Malhotra
Sh. Harsh Malhotra
Both R/o Flat No. 72/302
Gali No.2 Saroop Nagar.
Kooshak Road, Delhi-110042
Smt Geetu Bhasin
R/o H.No. F/2, 181-182,
Sec. 16, Rohini,
Delhi-110089 ..... Workman
Versus
M/s Delhi Transport Corporation,
DTC Headquarters,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002,
(through its Chairman) ..... Management
Date of institution 07.04.2010
Order reserved on 12.08.2025
Date of Award 16.09.2025
AWARD
1.Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute vide No. F. 24 (46)/09/Lab./CD/512 dated 11.03.2010 for adjudication with following terms of the reference: Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.09.16
21:44:32
+0530
Award 1 of 22
POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
"Whether the demand for Promotion in proper pay scale and allowances along with annual increments according to the seniority in 'Driver Grade' from his initial date of appointment i.e. 01.07.1981 (corrected as 1979), and extension of benefits of IVth and Vth Pay Commission to workman Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Tara Chand Badge No. 9674 & 13274, Pay Token No. 29121, is justified; and if yes, what directions are necessary in this respect?"
Statement of Claim
2. In his claim, workman stated that he was appointed by the management as a driver w.e.f. 01.07.1981, by its Asstt. Personal Officer-IV, vide letter No. PLD-II/I (6)/31/6482 dated 30.8.1981 and provided B. No. 9674, P.T. No. 29121 working in the BBM Depot-II, Delhi-9.
3. It is stated that management had illegally terminated workman's service vide letter No. OKD-I/GO/ Termination/82/128 dated 12.01.1982 and consequently the management had taken workman back in his services in the same grade as a Driver.
4. It is stated that management gave premature retirement to the workman on Medical ground in 1993 but after some time the management realized its mistake and thereafter canceled workman's premature retirement, and he was taken back in his service by the management in the same grade as a driver. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.16 21:44:49 +0530 Award 2 of 22 POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
5. It is stated that workman had also raised an Industrial Dispute against his termination dated 12.01.1982 and during the course of the dispute's adjudication proceedings in the Labour Court, management gave in writing that workman continues to be on the rolls of the management.
6. It is averred that management during the course of the workman's employment implemented IVth Pay Commission Pay Scales & Allowances w.e.f. 1.1.1986 vide office memorandum No. PLD-V(465)/91/1146 dated 8.3.1991 and Vth Pay Commission Pay Scales & Allowances w.e.f. 1.1.1996 vide resolution No. PLD-V (V)/PC/97/3624 dated 19.11.1997.
7. It is stated that management punished the workman mainly because in workman participated in a strike. It is alleged that management not only changed badge of workman from B. No. 9674 to 13274, but at the same time treated the workman as a fresh recruit for the purpose of his seniority, pay scales & allowances, despite the facts was that the workman was a permanent employee of the management as a driver, just like other drivers of the management, who had been recruited by the management in the same grade and were being paid much more pay scales & allowances in comparison to the workman, because the management had with malafide intention not only changed seniority rating and payment of salary and Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.09.16 21:45:02 +0530 Award 3 of 22 POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
allowances of the workman, but he was not being paid his service benefits as per his seniority by the management.
8. It is alleged that management with the malafide intention discriminated with the workman in the similar set of drivers in utter disregard of natural justice, due to this reason, the management is required to give the workman proper revised pay scales & allowances in according to his seniority counting from his appointment on 01.07.1981.
9. It is stated that it is settled law that equals must be treated equally and un-equal treatment to equals would be violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The management did not treat to the workman fairly without abuse of discretion, because pick and choose selective norms used against a workman, who always worked hard, honestly, sincerely with devotion to his duty and to the best of his ability even then, the management did not treat to the workman equally with similar employees of the management, which had during the pendency of the present demand imposed punishment on 25.11.08 and retired on 25.02.10 w.e.f. 31.12.09 illegally on medical grounds before attaining the retirement age as per clause 10 of the D.R.T.A Regulations 1952, provided retirement age of 58 to 60 years.
10.It is alleged that the management acted against the Digitally signed by GAUTAM workman un-lawfully and contrary to law, improper, GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.16 21:45:11 +0530 Award 4 of 22 POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
unreasonable, irrational, which had caused substantial loss to the workman seniority and pay scales & allowances are actually not in according to Para 8 of D.R.T.A. (Conditions of Appointment & Services) Regulations 1952, provided that the seniority in a grade shall be considered for the purpose of counting seniority from the date, when the workman initially appointed by management as a driver.
11.It is stated that management did not provide workman financial up-gradation benefits of services of 12 years and 24 years under ACP Scheme. A payslip of the workman for May 2007 containing B.P. Rs. 4220/- shows that improper pay was paid to the workman as per the management provided to the workman BP Rs. 1270/- on 1.10.1990 then in the year 2007, workman BP should have been of Rs. 5495/-in according to t pay fixation of workman.
12.It is stated that workman many a time personally requested the management and also wrote a letter dated 06.03.07 & 16.03.2007, but no response was given from the management, consequently workman served a demand notice dated 04.04.07 under registered post & UPC and the same was received by the management but the management neither sent any reply nor gave demanded reliefs to the workman.
13.It is stated that the workman left with no other alternative, Digitally signed by raised an Industrial Dispute before the Conciliation GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.16 21:45:27 +0530 Award 5 of 22 POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
Officer, but the management did not settle the matter before the Conciliation Officer. It is prayed that management be directed to grant promotion with proper pay scales and allowances and fixation of benefits in revised pay scales of IIIrd, IVth, Vth and VIth pay commission and statutory annual increments in according to the seniority in the drivers grade from his initial date of appointment i.e. 01.07.1981 to the workman till his retirement and further be directed for the payment of arrears of pay and allowances with an interest @ 18% per annum from 12.1.1982 to the date of payment. Written Statement
14.In the written statement, it is stated that workman's long past record of remaining unauthorized absent from duties shows his utter disinterest in the job, which has also caused immense financial loss to the Corporation. The management's lawful right to punish the workman for his misconduct is duly acknowledged by the Apex Court also in its various judgments on the issue. It is stated that fresh appointment of the workman, therefore, cannot be linked to his previous service, which was dispensed with by the management.
15.It is stated that the claim of the workman suffers from delay and latches for as long as 29 years since 12-01-1982, i.e. the date from which the workman desires continuity of service illegally and unlawfully. It is averred that workman Digitally signed slept over his rights and never complained against this by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.09.16 21:45:34 +0530 Award 6 of 22 POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
issue to any authority all these years while he was in service The workman has since retired from services on 25-02-2010. No reason for such delay has at all been given nor any request for condonation of delay is mentioned in the claim petition.
16.On merits, it is submitted that the workman was appointed as Retainer-Crew Driver w.e.f. 01.07.1981 and when the workman remained absent from duties without any prior authorization or permission for 66 days during the period of 6 months ending 31.12.1981, his services were dispensed with w.e.f. 12.01.1982 as per provisions of para 4 (XIV) of the Executive Instructions regarding employment of Retainer Crew. Later, after considering his appeal, the workman was appointed as a fresh Retainer Crew Driver w.e.f. 25.02.1983. Thus, his previous service has nothing to do with this fresh appointment. He was brought on monthly rates of pay on 24.08.1983 and accordingly, he was issued fresh B.No. 13274 and since workman has retired from the services of the Corporation on 25.02.2010, as such, there is no question of linking the two appointments.
17.The workman was dismissed on 24.03.1988 for participating in the strike in March-1988, and he was re- employed on 23.01.1989 on the same position and pay drawn by him at the time of dismissal. Hence, he has no Digitally signed by GAUTAM claim against the management to that extent. It is entirely a GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.09.16 21:45:41 +0530 Award 7 of 22 POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
different issue that the workman was pre-maturely retired later, on 19.05.1993, but not due to his taking part in the strike of 1988. He was taken back in service on 31.05.1993. It is stated that the two incidents are not at all related.
18.It is submitted that at that time and date, the workman was a Driver and rules relating to the R/C employment were applied. Hence, no benefit of continuity of services or any link with his fresh appointment can be given. The two appointments were two independent offers and the workman accepted the second fresh appointment offer without any protest, objection or pre-condition that it be considered in continuity with his previous service with the management. Hence, workman is barred from claiming seniority w.e.f. 01.07.1981 because that offer ended with dispensation of his services on 12.01.1982.
19.It is stated that workman is prohibited under principles of estoppel to raise any objection now, under principles of equity and fair play. There is no question of malafide on the part of management against the workman. He cannot be allowed to raise this issue after 28 years from his fresh appointment in 1983 and that also, after he has retired.
20.It is submitted that basic pay of workman was fixed at Rs. 1270/- on 01.10.1990. However, the workman deliberately Digitally signed suppressed the fact that he was awarded punishment due to by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.09.16 21:45:49 +0530 Award 8 of 22 POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
his poor service record and unauthorized absence from duties, hence, he was not given any annual increments for the period from 1993 to 2004. Therefore, his pay was fixed at Rs. 10,300/- w.e.f. 01.07.2007 under the VIth Pay Commission which is as per rules.
21.Management denied that it did not respond to the representation of the workman. It is stated that Depot Manager, B.B.M Depot informed the workman vide letter dated 08.05.2007 that his representations addressed to Chairman, DTC, were considered and workman was informed that he was being paid wages as per rules. It is prayed that the claim of the workman be dismissed. Issues
22.On 02.03.2012 on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1) Whether statement of claim is not maintainable on ground of latches/belated stage? OPM
2) As per terms of reference.
Workman's Evidence
23.Workman Om Prakash unfortunately got expired on 27.01.2012 and his Legal Representatives were im-pleaded as claimants vide orders dated 05.08.2015.
24. In order to prove entitlement of workman, Ms Parvesh Malhotra wife of workman examined herself as WW1 and tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.WW1/A. Digitally signed by GAUTAM She proved the following documents: GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.09.16 21:45:56 +0530 Award 9 of 22 POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
Copy of termination letter of the workman dated 12.01.1982 as Ex.WW1/1.
Copy of letter dated 19.05.1993, retiring the workman on medical ground as Ex.WW1/2 and letter dated 31.05.1993 of canceling the said order as Ex.WW1/3.
Copy of an Award dated 03.12.2003, passed by Labour Court as Ex.WW1/4.
Copy of office memorandum implementing 4th and 5th pay commission of pay & allowances as Ex.WW1/5 & 6.
Copy of order dated 25.02.2010, retiring the workman as Ex.WW1/7.
An application dated 12.03.2010, in respect of representation of the workman against his retirement as Ex.WW1/8.
Copy of payslip of workman for May 2007 as Ex.WW1/9.
Representations of workman as Ex.WW1/10 & 11.
A letter of management dated 04.05.2007, as Ex.WW1/12.
Representations of LRs of the workman as Ex.WW1/3 &
14. Copy of demand notice dated 04.04.2007, along with postal receipts as Ex.WW1/15 to 19 and Copy of extract of espousal as Ex.WW1/20.
25. On behalf of workman, WW2 Munna Lal Pandey has been examined, who tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.WW2/A. He proved espousal in favor of workman as Ex.WW1/20 and Ex WW2/1. Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN Management's Evidence GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.09.16
21:46:03
+0530
Award 10 of 22
POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
26. Management examined MW1 Pawan Kumar Bangar, Regional Manager (North), DTC, and he tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.MW1/A. He relied upon documents Ex MW1/1 to Ex MW1/16. Rival Contentions
27. It is contended on behalf of the workman that the workman has successfully proved his entitlement for promotion in proper pay-scale and allowances along with annual increments. It is argued that the workman is also entitled for extension of benefits of IV and V Pay Commission. It is stated that action of the management for imposing the punishment. On 25.11.2008 for reduction of lowest stage of time-scale of driver for two years was given during the pendency of an Industrial Dispute and hence, the punishment imposed on the workman and retiring him during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute is bad in law being in contravention of provision of Section 33(1) Industrial Disputes Act. Workman has relied upon the case titled as "Sri Dorairaj Spintex v. R. Chittibabu, (2021) 12 SCC 38".
28.On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the management, that workman was retired as per the rule of DRTA(condition of appointment and services) Regulations, 1952. It is stated that during the course of his service, the workman was charge-sheeted, but the workman did not appear in the departmental proceedings Digitally signed by GAUTAM nor filed any reply. It is stated that management has paid GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.09.16 21:46:08 +0530 Award 11 of 22 POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
the entire due amount to the workman as per the pay-scale as revised time to time and the same has been mentioned in the service book of the management.
29.I have heard Sh. Ram Sewak, AR for workman and Sh. Sandeep Kumar, AR for the management. I have also gone through the documents, pleadings as well as the written arguments of parties.
Analysis and Discussion Issue No.1:Whether statement of claim is not maintainable on ground of latches/belated stage? OPM
30.In "Mangal Singh Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Delhi 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1109 ", it is held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under:
7. It is indicated from the contents of the award that the Industrial Tribunal was persuaded to answer the reference against the workman and proceeded to hold that the services of the workman were not terminated illegally and unjustifiably on the ground that the workman failed to approach the labour authority with due diligence and the redressal was sought for after expiry of about five years and on that count the Tribunal proceeded to answer such reference against the workman. It is settled law that the limitation provided under the Limitation Act is not applicable to a reference and other proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act.
In the decision of Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co- operative Marketingcum- Processing Service Society, Ltd. [1999 (2) L.L.N. 674], the Supreme Court after noticing the various earlier judgments including that of Jai Bhagwan [1983 (2) L.L.N. 951] (vide supra) held that the relief under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be GAUTAM MANAN Digitally signed by GAUTAM denied to the workman merely on the ground of MANAN Date:
2025.09.16 21:46:14 +0530 Award 12 of 22 POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
delay and that the plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. It was also held that no reference to the Labour Court could be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone and that even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing, the Tribunal, Labour Court or board, dealing with the case could appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back-wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissal. Reference could also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh v. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board [1999 (3) L.L.N. 872], wherein also the Supreme Court held that due to delay in raising the industrial dispute, the entire reference cannot be held to be incompetent.
8. In my considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The issue of delay was one of the major factors which persuaded the Tribunal herein to answer the reference against the workman holding that the delay of five years in approaching the proper authority itself proves that the workman had himself abandoned his services. It was also held that the workman had given no explanation for his silence over period of about five years, after the alleged termination of his service and, therefore, when prompt action was not taken from the side of the workman, it could be deduced that the workman had abandoned his services. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid findings cannot be sustained. The plea of delay although was raised by the management, the same was required to be proved by leading proper evidence on both sides. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.16
21:46:21 +0530
Award 13 of 22
POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
31.Workman is seeking his promotion and revised pay scale, and he has raised the present dispute in 2007. As per deposition of MW1, the matter between workman and management was going on in conciliation proceedings since 2007. MW1 admits that vide memo dated 25.11.2008 workman was brought to lower pay-scale and workman vide letter dated 16.02.2009 (Ex.MW1/11) he was also issued punishment confirmation. It is evident that during his employment workman claimed his right which was denied to him. Reference has been made on 11.03.2010. Thus, there is no substantial delay in raising the present dispute by the workman nor management has led any evidence to prove delay on part of the workman in raising the dispute.
32.Nonetheless, in Raghubir Singh Vs General Manager, Haryana Roadways, 2014 (10) SCC 301, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"31. The rejection of the reference by the Labour Court by answering the additional issue no. 2 regarding the delay latches and limitation without adjudicating the points of dispute referred to it on the merits amounts to failure to exercise its statutory power under Section 11A of the Act. Therefore, we have to interfere with the impugned award of the Labour Court and the judgment & order of the High Court as it has erroneously confirmed the award of the Labour Court without examining the relevant provisions of the Act and decisions of this Court referred to supra on the relevant issue regarding the limitation.." Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN GAUTAM Date:
MANAN 2025.09.16
21:46:29
+0530
Award 14 of 22
POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
33.Thus, in view of the fact that management failed to prove any in-ordinate delay on part of the workman in raising the dispute and in the light of above authoritative judgment, the claim of workman is required to be adjudged on merits rather to reject it on ground of delay and latches, especially when the workman is still under employment of management.
Issue No.2: As per terms of reference.
34.Workman in his claim is demanding for promotion in proper pay scale and allowances along with annual increments according to the seniority in 'Driver Grade' from his initial date of appointment 1979.
35. Case of the management is that the workman was appointed as Retainer-crew Driver (RC Driver) w.e.f 01.07.1981 and was given badge no. 9674 and his services were dispensed with on 12.01.1982 vide letter Ex.MW1/4. On the appeal of the workman, he was given fresh appointment w.e.f 25.02.1983, but he was not given seniority and was given new badge no. 13274.
36.Management again dismissed workman on 24.03.1988 and was re-employed on 23.01.1989 on the same position. Later-on the management prematurely retired to the workman on medical ground vide letter dated 19.05.1993 and after some time, when the management realized its Digitally signed by mistake vide letter dated 31.05.1993 workman was taken GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.16 21:46:37 +0530 Award 15 of 22 POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
back in his service by the management in the same grade as a driver.
37. Management has also submitted that a show cause notice dated 25.11.2008 proposing punishment of "Reduction of lowest stage of time scale of driver for two years" in a case of 189 days unauthorized absence from duty from the period from 26.09.2007 to 01.04.2008 was given to workman and the workman failed to submit the reply to the show cause notice as such punishment was confirmed vide letter dated 16.02.2009.
38.Management retired workman on 25.02.2010 illegally on medical grounds before attaining the retirement age as per Clause 10 of the D.R.T.A. Regulations 1952, provided retirement age 58 years to 60 years. It is stated by the workman that punishment imposed by the management is without any show cause notice or necessary permission the Conciliation Officer because an Industrial Disputes under Section 2(k) ID Act, 1947 was pending, and thus above- mentioned action of management is void and cannot be imposed on the workman.
39. Date of initial appointment: Workman has contended that date of his initial appointment is 1979, whereas, management contends that workman was appointed on 12.01.1982. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.16 21:46:44 +0530 Award 16 of 22 POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
40. Workman has not placed any document on record to establish that he was appointed in year 1979, nor he has mentioned any specific date of his appointment. Workman has relied upon a written statement Ex MW1/X-1 filed by the management in ID No.55/99 wherein it has been mentioned by the management that workman was initially employed with DTC as a Driver since 1979 and was allotted a Badge No. 9674. However, there is no document on record which indicates that the workman was employed by the management in 1979.
41. An appointment letter of the workman dated 30.06.1981 has been proved on record as Ex.MW1/1 wherein the workman was appointed as Retainer Crew Driver w.e.f. 01.07.1981. Appointment letter Ex. MW1/1 establishes that the workman was appointed by the management on 01.07.1981 and not prior to that. The written statement filed by the management as Ex.MW1/X-1 which mentions the employment of the workman with the management in 1979 cannot dis-lodge the appointment letter Ex. MW1/1 which conclusively proves the date of appointment of the workman as 01.07.1981.
42. Workman in demand notices dated 04.04.2007 and 06.03.2007 (Ex.WW1/5 & 10) also mentioned his date of appointment as 01.07.1981. Though after about 9 years of the said notices, workman through a rectification notice Digitally signed by GAUTAM claimed his appointment in the year 1979 but as stated GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.09.16
21:46:53
+0530
Award 17 of 22
POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
above no document is filed by the workman to substantiate his claim in this regard. Thus, it is concluded that workman was employed by the management on 01.07.1981 and not in 1979 as claimed by workman.
43. Seniority of Workman: Management has contended that vide orders dated 12.01.1982 as Ex.WW1/1 the services of the workman were dispensed with and following an appeal made by the workman, he was appointed afresh by the management on 24.02.1983 vide letter Ex. MW1/7 and was allotted a fresh Badge No. 13274. It is stated that since the workman was given fresh appointment on 24.02.1983 as such, his service has to be counted w.e.f. 24.02.1983 and not prior to that.
44.It is the matter of record that management not once but thrice terminated the services of workman. For the first time, he was removed from service on 12.01.1982 and secondly, he was again dismissed from service on 24.03.1988 for participating in the strike, and he was re- employed on 23.01.1989 on the same position. On the third occasion the workman was given premature retirement on 19.05.1993 on medical ground and again, later on he was taken back in service on the same grade as a driver.
45. Record reflects that on two subsequent occasions when the Digitally signed by workman was dismissed and was given premature GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.16
21:47:25
+0530
Award 18 of 22
POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
retirement, he was taken back in service on the same position and the pay drawn by the workman at the time of his dismissal, whereas, when the workman was initially removed from service w.e.f. 12.01.1982 and was re- instated in service on 25.02.1983, he was not taken back in service on the same position, rather vide letter Ex. MW1/7, he was given fresh appointment.
46. It is matter of record that after his termination on 12.01.1982, workman gave a representation dated 09.09.1982 as Ex.MW1/5 to the management for his reinstatement, thereby explaining that he absented from the duty due to sudden death of his elder brother and bhabhi and there was nobody in the family to look after their children. Considering the circumstances, narrated by workman, the workman was given fresh appointment w.e.f. 25.02.1983. However, the management is unable to explain the reasons that why the workman was given fresh appointment when his request was for reinstatement on the ground of unfortunate death of his family members.
47.Material on record reflects that the management had considered the representation of workman seeking reinstatement favorably and thus, the only option for the management was to re-instate the workman and not giving him a fresh appointment with a fresh Badge number. After considering the request of the workman, the management Digitally signed by GAUTAM once accepted the explanation of the workman regarding GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.16
21:48:19
+0530
Award 19 of 22
POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
his absence ought to have re-instated the workman on his previous position rather to appoint him afresh and by not doing so, the management prejudiced the seniority of workman. Thus, the workman was entitled to be reinstated in service w.e.f his initial date of appointment, that is 01.07.1981.
48.Punishment imposed on the Workman: Record reflects that management issued a show cause notice dated 25.11.2008 proposing therewith the punishment of "Reduction of lowest stage of time-scale of driver for two years" in a case of 189 days of his unauthorized absence from duty from 26.09.2007 to 01.04.2008 and the workman failed to submit the reply to the show cause notice despite giving ample opportunity the said punishment was confirmed vide letter dated 16.02.2009 as Ex. MW1/11. Workman was also retired from the services of the corporation after attaining the superannuation age of 55 years w.e.f 31.12.2009 on medical ground as the workman was found unfit by the DTC Medical Board on 22.02.2010. Accordingly, the workman was retired w.e.f 31.12.2009 (AN) in accordance with clause 10 of the DRTA (Corporation of appointment & Services) Regulation, 1952 vide letter dated 25.02.2010 (Ex.MW1/13).
49.MW1 Pawan Kumar Bangar, Deputy Chief General Manager, DTC during his cross-examination admitted that Digitally signed by GAUTAM since 2007 a dispute raised by the workman in respect of GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.16 21:48:31 +0530 Award 20 of 22 POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
non-payment of the legitimate pay-scale to him was pending.
50.It is also matter of record that as per service record workman, date of birth of the workman is 15.01.1956. As per the service Regulation, the medical fitness of the workman was to assessed after his attainment of age of 55 but medical examination of the workman was conducted on 22.02.2010, that is prior to his attaining age of 55 years. Thus, it is evident that the order inflicting punishment to workman in 2008 and retiring him vide order dated 25.02.2010 was unjustified and also in contravention with provision of Section 33 (2) of Industrial Disputes Act.
51.Pay Fixation: In the light of above discussions, the workman's seniority and pay fixation is to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment i.e. from 01.07.1981.
52.Though the management has contended that due to poor service record of the management and his unauthorized absence from duties, the workman was not given any annual increments from 1993 to 2004 and was denied the benefit of pay commissions and ACP scheme. However, the management has not proved whether the workman was ever communicated about his poor service record or sought any explanation from him regarding his Digitally signed by GAUTAM unsatisfactory performance. GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.09.16 21:48:38 +0530 Award 21 of 22 POIT No. 898/2016 "Om Prakash Vs DTC"
53.The unequal treatment in pay scales, seniority, promotions, and benefits compared to similarly situated drivers shows discrimination, infringing Article 14 of the Constitution which mandates equal treatment and non-arbitrariness. Thus, the workman is entitled to recognition of continuous service from 1981, with proper seniority. Pay fixation and arrears according to 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Pay Commissions including statutory increments. Revival of service benefits under the ACP scheme. Workman is also entitled to appropriate promotion and allowances as per seniority.
Relief
54. The reference is hereby allowed. The management is directed to fix the pay and seniority of Shri Om Prakash (through his legal representatives) from the date of initial appointment in 01.07.1981 and pay the entire arrears including arrears and increments under pay commissions. Management shall pay the arrears with interest @ 8% per annum with grant all consequential benefits including promotions and service benefits under ACP. Management shall implement the award within 60 days of its publication. Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open Digitally signed GAUTAM by GAUTAM court on 16th September 2025. MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.09.16 21:48:48 +0530 GAUTAM MANAN PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI Award 22 of 22