Delhi High Court - Orders
Union Of India vs Balbir Singh & Anr on 9 August, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.08.2021 19:16:18
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6510/2021 & CM APPL. 20417/2021
UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Dabas, Advocate.
versus
BALBIR SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Meghna De, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 09.08.2021
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present petition challenges the award dated 26 th September, 2019, by which the Respondent-workman, who is now deceased, has been held to be entitled to regularisation, along with all monetary benefits. The operative portion of the award reads as under:
"The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the workman. The management is directed to regularize the service of the workman in the post of Safai Karmachari/Group D w.e.f. 17.06.1992 and fix his pay accordingly in the pay scale applicable from time to time alongwith other services benefits, so as to extend the financial benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased workman. It is further directed that the entire exercise by the management shall be completed within the period of 3 months from the date when this award would become executable, failing which the monetary entitlements of the workman towards his differential pay and other benefits accrued shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of publication of the award till final payment is Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:10.08.2021 19:16:18 made. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947."
3. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon order dated 1st March, 2006 passed in WP(C) 8838/2003 titled UOI v. Balbir Singh, wherein this Court has recorded that the workman was offered to be appointed as a leave substitute and assigned duties and this was acceptable to the workman. Reliance is also placed on the fact that the other workman, with whom the Respondent is being compared is Mr. Shyam Lal, who was engaged on 1 st August, 1986 and has been continuously working in the department. However, the workman in the present case had not rendered any services between 13th January, 1987 to 4th May, 2005 i.e., for a period of almost 18 years.
4. Ms. Meghna De, ld. counsel submits that the workman was reinstated by the Labour Court and therefore, he cannot be blamed for having not rendered services for 18 years. It is submitted that the workman has passed away and his legal representatives are now entitled to the amount which has been granted.
5. A perusal of the recovery certificate shows that a sum of Rs.39,58,017/- has been awarded in favour of the workman, as the award is granting benefits since 17th June, 1992. The effect of order dated 1st March, 2006 in WP(C) 8838/2003 titled UOI v. Balbir Singh on the plea for regularisation, as also the fact that the workman had not rendered any services for 18 years, would have to be considered by this Court.
6. Accordingly, issue notice. Ms. Meghna De, ld. counsel accepts notice for the Respondent.
Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:10.08.2021 19:16:18
7. Subject to the deposit of Rs.5 lakhs with the ld. Registrar General of this Court within a period of four weeks from today, the impugned award dated 26th September, 2019 shall remain stayed.
8. Litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- are awarded to the legal representatives of the Respondent.
9. List for hearing on 11th November, 2021. Parties are permitted to place on record any pleadings/documents forming part of the trial court record which they wish to rely upon. Electronic copy of the LCR in ID No. 39/2008 titled Shri Balbir Singh v. The Superintendent, Post and Telegraph Department, North Division, Civil Line Zone, Delhi be also requisitioned from the CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
AUGUST 9, 2021 mw/T