Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Garrison Engineer (Central), Delhi ... vs M.J. Prasad & Ors on 21 December, 2020
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:21.12.2020
21:15:51
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10809/2020
M/S GARRISON ENGINEER (CENTRAL), DELHI
CANTT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Ms. Nidhi Mittal
& Mr. A.C. Boxipatro, Advocates
(M:8800332253).
versus
M.J. PRASAD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. N. Bhushan, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, Advocate
for R-3.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 21.12.2020
1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing. CM APPL. 33906/2020 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM APPL. 33905/2020 (for lengthy synopsis)
3. This application has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking permission to file a lengthy synopsis and list of dates. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.
W.P.(C) 10809/2020 & CM APPL. 33904/2020 (for stay)
4. The present petition challenges the order dated 30th October, 2019 along with the recovery orders dated 27th July, 2020 and 20th August, 2020. The case of the Petitioner is that vide order dated 17th April, 2012 passed by the ld. Single Judge in W.P.(C) 6796/2001 titled M.J. Porashad v. A.G.E.B.R.&T. Garrison Engineer (Central) & Anr., the Petitioner was directed to reinstate the Workman with 50% back wages. The operative Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH W.P.(C) 10809/2020 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:21.12.2020 19:42 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:21.12.2020 21:15:51 portion of the order reads as under:
"...Now, it is well settled by the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court that once the termination of services of an industrial worker is found to be in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the termination is void ab initio. Reference in this regard can be made to one decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1, Panipat", (2010) 5 SCC 497. Resultantly, the petitioner-workman is ordered to be reinstated in service. As far as the back wages are concerned, considering all the facts and circumstances and particularly the fact that he had worked as a regular employee only for a short period, the respondent no.
1-management shall pay him only 50% of his back wages. The petition stands disposed of accordingly."
5. This order was unsuccessfully challenged by the Petitioner before the ld. Division Bench in LPA No. 764/2012 titled AGEB & R v. M.J. Porashad & Anr. and before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 14018/2013 titled A.G.E.B & R. Garrison Engineer v. M.J. Porashad.
6. It is submitted by Mr. Kurup, ld. Counsel, that the Workman was paid the 50% back wages and was reinstated in 2015. For the period from 2012 to 2015, the remaining 50% back wages was also paid to him.
7. The present dispute has arisen as the Workman is now praying for Modified Assured Career Progression (hereinafter 'MACP') and Assured Career Progression (hereinafter 'ACP') charges from the Department. According to Mr. Kurup, ld. counsel, he is not entitled to MACP charges as a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH W.P.(C) 10809/2020 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:21.12.2020 19:42 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:21.12.2020 21:15:51 matter of right as he has not given the `Trade test'. Mr. Kurup, also submits that the Workman has retired in the meantime after having been reinstated.
8. The question as to whether the Workman is entitled to MACP and ACP charges would have to be determined by this Court, as from a plain reading of the order dated 17th April, 2012, it is found that the Workman has merely been reinstated with 50% back wages. The nature of MACP and ACP charges being what they are, it requires adjudication as to whether the said amounts are liable to be paid.
9. Accordingly, issue notice to Respondent No.1. Mr. N. Bhushan, ld. counsel accepts notice.
10. In the meantime, there shall be a stay of the impugned order and the recovery orders pursuant thereto, subject to the condition that the Workman succeeds, the Department may be directed to pay interest as may be determined by this Court. Issue notice in the application to the workman.
11. Let the counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
12. List for hearing on 16th April, 2021.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J DECEMBER 21, 2020 Rahul/T Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH W.P.(C) 10809/2020 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:21.12.2020 19:42