Delhi District Court
Labour Department vs . on 4 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA:
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I, ROUSE
AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS , NEW DELHI.
Ref. No.: F.24/ID/(370)/12/NWD/(343)/Lab./6897-6901
Dated : 26.10.2012
I.D. No. 22/16 (Old No. 115/12)
Workmen
(i) Sh. B. M. Saxena
S/o Sh. M. R. Saxena
(ii) Sh. Rishi Prakash Bhardwaj
S/o Sh. Chander Bhan
as represented by
Delhi State Electricity Union
H-287, DESU Colony
Tripolia, Gur Mandi
Delhi-110 007
Vs.
The Management of
M/s North Delhi Power Ltd
(new name M/s Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.)
through
Chief Executive Officer
Hudson Lane
Kingsway Camp
Delhi-110 009
Date of institution : 03.12.2012
Date of reserving award : 22.02.2022
Date of award : 04.03.2022
(More than 09 years old case)
AWAR D
1. Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital
ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata
Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 1/22
Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute arising between the
parties named above for adjudication to this Tribunal vide
notification No. F.24/ID/ (370)/12/NWD/(343)/Lab./6897-6901 dated
26.10.2012 with following terms of the reference:-:-
"Whether the Workmen (i) Shri B. M.
Saxena S/o Sh. M. R. Saxena (ii) Shri
Rishi Prakash Bhardwaj S/o Shri Chander
Bhan, Senior Clerks, who were assigned
the work of post of Assistant Accountant
vide erswhile DESU order dated
04.01.1990 are entitled to the wages of
Assistant Accountant for the period they
had worked as such; and if so, to what
relief are they entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. In the statement of claim has been filed by the
claimants/workmen it is alleged that the workman Shri B. M. Saxena
was appointed as Junior Clerk in the erstwhile DESU on 03.03.1962
and subsequently, he was promoted as Senior Clerk. Thereafter, he
was retired from the services of the DESU/DVB w.e.f. 31.01.2003.
At that time he was working as Asst. Accountant.
(a) The other workman Shri Rishi Parkash Bhardwaj was appointed
as Junior Clerk in the erstwhile DESU on 29.03.1963 and
subsequently, he was promoted as Senior Clerk. Thereafter he was
retired from the services of DESU/DVB w.e.f. 31.12.2002. At that
time he was also working as Asst. Accountant.
ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata
Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 2/22
(c) vide order dated 04.01.1990, the management had upgraded
171 posts of Senior Clerks as Asstt. Accountants in the pay scale of
Rs.1640-3275 and the workmen were asked to work against the
upgraded post of Asst. Accountant while designated as Senior Clerk
and they worked continuously for about 10 years without any break
in service. The workmen were regularized to the post of Asst.
Accountant in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9875 (revised from the
earlier pay scale of Rs.1640-3275) in April, 2000.
(d) the workmen/ Union had requested the management for
payment of emoluments for the post of Asst. Accountant as the
workmen had been performing their duty of higher post of Asstt.
Accountant without any complaint but the said request had not been
acceded to and accordingly, the DSEB employees union had raised
an Industrial Dispute on 08.06.1993, which was decided by the
Court of Sh. P. S. Teji, Ld. ADJ, Delhi vide order dated 09.12.2002;
thereby ordering that only Sh. K. L. Sharma, Sh. D. K. Gupta, the
two officials in the list of 171 employees, who have been ordered to
work as Asst. Accountant vide order dated 04.01.1990 had been
ordered to be given pay scale of Asst. Accountant i.e. 1640-3275
(old) in pursuance of order dated 04.01.1990 till they were actually
placed in that scale on promotion, including the workmen;
ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata
Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 3/22
(e) the other workmen in order dated 04.01.1990 had not been
given the benefit of award as they had not come to give evidence in
the case and accordingly, Presiding Officer had restricted its award
only for two workmen who had come in witness box;
(f) thereafter, the remaining workmen in the list of 171 workmen
made representation to the management to make them the payment
of Asst. Accountant, but nothing was done;
(g) the Delhi Transco Co. Ltd. the newly formed company on
01.07.2002 after unbundling the DVB had challenged the above
award in Delhi High Court, which was dismissed vide its order dated
31.03.2005;
(h) then Delhi Transco Ltd. had also filed a review petition against
the abovesaid order, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court vide its order dated 20.04.2005;
(i) thereafter, the Delhi Transco Ltd. had implemented the said
award by making the payment of wages of the higher posts of Asstt.
Accountant along with other consequential benefits to the two
workmen;
(j) since the workmen, who had not been paid the wages in terms of
the award had filed a writ petition in Delhi High Court, Delhi for
implementation of the award in respect of all 171 workmen, the
ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata
Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 4/22
same petition was dismissed vide order dated 01.12.2006 with
direction to the workmen to approach the Labour court again
(proper forum) in this regard;
(k) the workmen had also challenged the order dated 01.12.2006
but the same was also dismissed with the abovesaid same
direction;
(l) the workmen had also filed a special leave petition in Supreme
Court of India and the same was also dismissed vide order dated
11.08.2008 in Limine;
(m) the workmen approached their Union and the Union has sent a
demand notice to all the newly formed companies on 18.05.2011 but
no reply had been received;
(n) thereafter on failure of the conciliation proceedings, the present
case has been referred for adjudication before this Tribunal.
It is prayed in the Statement of Claim that an award in
favour of the workmen be passed and the management be directed
to pay the salary of Asst. Accountant to the workmen in the pre-
revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-3275 revised to Rs.5500-9875 for the
period w.e.f. 04.01.1990 to the date upto which they had worked as
such on the higher post of Asst. Accountant alongwith all
consequential benefits and also to revise their pension accordingly
ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata
Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 5/22
and may also be directed to pay suitable compensation of damages.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of management, it
is alleged that:
(a) the present claim has been filed with the sole intention to harass
and cause undue pressure on the management;
(b) the present claim is barred by delay and latches;
(c) the claim of the workmen is liable to be dismissed on the ground
of resjudicata and estoppel;
(d) the present claim is not maintainable against the management
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.
(e) the claim of the workman has not been legally espoused by any
recognized Union;
Relationship of workmen and management has been
admitted.
All other averments made in the statement of claim more
or less are denied and dismissal of the same with cost has been
prayed for.
4. Rejoinder has been filed by workmen, wherein all
averments made in the written statement have been denied and the
contentions made in the statement of claim have been reiterated
ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata
Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 6/22
and affirmed.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 20.09.2013:-
"(i) Whether statement of claim is not
maintainable on ground of latches/
belated stage? OPM
(ii) Whether present claim is barred by
principle of res-judicata? OPM
(iii) Whether present claim is barred by
principle of estoppal? OPM
(iv) Whether present claim is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties? OPM
(v) As per terms of reference."
6. To prove their case, workman Sh. B. M. Saxena
examined himself as WW1 by way of his affidavit by way of
evidence, Ex.WW1/A, in which he has affirmed the contents of his
statement of claim. He has also relied upon documents Ex.WW1/1
to Ex. WW1/5, which are:-
i. Ex WW1/1 being copy of office order dated 04.01.1990;
ii. Ex WW1/2 being copy of office order dated 06.04.2000;
iii. Ex WW1/3 being copy of award dated 09.09.2002;
iv. Ex WW1/4 being copy of order passed by Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in LPA No.684-92/2006 dated 10.12.2007;
v. Ex WW1/5 being copy of espousal dated 16.05.2011.
ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata
Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 7/22
On 04.07.2015, Ld. AR for the management had cross
examined WW1 Sh. B. M. Saxena.
To prove their case, the other workman Sh. Rishi Parkash
Bhardwaj examined himself as WW2 by way of his affidavit by way
of evidence, Ex.WW2/A, in which he has affirmed the contents of
the statement of claim. He has also relied upon documents, which
are already Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/5 (already exhibited in the
evidence of WW1).
On 04.07.2015, Ld. AR for the management had cross
examined WW2 Sh. Rishi Parkash Bhardwaj.
Thereafter, on the same day i.e. 04.07.2015, Ld. AR for
the workmen closed workman evidence, vide his separate
statement.
7. To prove its defence, management examined Sh.
Prashant Kulshrestha, Sr. Manager of the management as MW1 by
way of his affidavit by way of evidence, Ex.MW1/A, in which he has
affirmed the contents of the written statement.
On 18.12.2015, Ld. AR for the workmen cross-examined
the MW1 Sh.Prashant Kulshrestha.
Thereafter, on 18.12.2015, Ld.AR for the management
ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata
Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 8/22
closed management evidence, vide his separate statement.
8. Thereafter, final arguments have been heard.
9. I have gone through the entire record of the case
including pleadings of the parties, evidence led and documents
proved during evidence.
10. I have also considered the arguments on behalf of both
the parties.
11. Written synopsis have been filed on behalf of both the
parties.
12. Ld. AR for the workman has submitted during arguments
that present workmen had worked against the upgraded post of
Assistant Accountant while designated as Senior Clerks and had
also been paid wages for the post of Senior Clerks instead of
Assistant Accountant and they had worked from 04.01.1990 to
06.04.2000 for about 10 years continously without any break and
also to the satisfaction of the management and hence they are
entitled to the wages for the post of Assistant Accountant w.e.f
ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata
Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 9/22
4.1.1990 to 6.04.2000 instead of Senior Clerks. It is further
submitted that the workmen had requested the management for
payment of emoluments for the post of Assistant Accountant, but
the said request had not been acceded to and accordingly an
industrial dipute on 08.06.1993 was raised through union. The said
dispute had been decided by the ld. ADJ thereby ordering that only
two workmen in the list of 171 employees had been ordered to work
as Assistant Accountant vide order dated 04.1.1990 & had been
ordered to be given pay scale of Asstt. Accountant. However, no
orders had been given in respect of remaining 169 workmen in the
list. The management had also challenged the award in the Hon'ble
High Court which was dismissed by the hon'ble High Court of Delhi
vide its order dated 31.03.2005. Thereafter, remaining workmen had
filed a writ petition in Hon'ble Delhi High Court for implementation of
the award in respect of 171 workmen, however, the same petition
was dimissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated
01.12.2006 with direction to the workman to approach the Labour
court again in this regard.
Thereafter, workmen had also challenged the order dated
01.12.2006 by filing an LPA, but the same was also dismissed by
the Double Bench of Delhi High Courts of Delhi. Workmen had also
ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata
Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 10/22
filed special leave petitiion in the Apex Court, but the same was also
dimissed. After being aggrieved, the present industrial dispute has
been filed.
Ld. AR for management has submitted during arguments
that present claim is barred by latches /belated stage as it is
admitted by workmen in their cross-examination that no
representation was given by them either after passing of office order
dated 04.01.1990 or after office order dated 06.04.2000 or even
after the award dated 9.12.2002. Ld AR for management has also
relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Prabhakar
Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and another (2015)
15 SCC 1. It is further submitted that it is settled law that the
principles of res judicata, especially constructive res-judicata are
applicable to industrial dispute. It is further argued that present
reference is clearly hit by Explanation IV, V and VI of Section 11 of
CPC and it is submitted that present claim is barred by res-judicata.
He further refers the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
Pondichery Khadi and Village Industries board Vs. P.
Kulothangan and Anr (as reported in (2004) 1 SCC 68). It is
further submitted that when the present workmen were before the
Tribunal in the earlier ID, it was for them to lead evidence and if they
ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata
Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 11/22
failed to do, must suffer the consequences. Ld. AR for management
has further relied upon the judgments:
• (2015) 15 SCC 1 Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director
Sericulture Department and anr.
• (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 68 Pondichery
Khadi and Village industries Board Vs. P.
Kulothangan and anr.
• (1974) 4 Supreme Court Cases 681 Workmen
of the straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs.
M/s Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
13. My issue wise findings are:-
"(i) Whether statement of claim is not maintainable
on ground of latches/ belated stage? OPM
The onus to prove issue no. 1 is upon the management.
Ld. AR for management had contested that even though no
limitation has been provided in raising industrial dispute but it has to
be raised within a reasonable period, otherwise it would be barred
by limitation.
In the present case the case put forth by the workmen is
that an office order dated 04.1.1990 of management had upgraded
the post of 171 senior clerks as Assistant Accountant in the pay
scale of Rs.1640-3275. These 171 Senior Clerks, including the two
workmen before this Tribunal had been asked to work against the
upgraded post of Assistant Accountant but their designation
ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata
Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 12/22
remained as Senior Clerk. They were later regularized in the post of
Assistant Acountant in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9875 in April,
2000. The workmen in the present case were retired in the years
2002 and 2003. However, demand notice was alleged to be sent
through the union on 18.05.2011 and present reference was placed
before this Tribunal vide order dated 26.10.2012.
WW-1 in his cross-examination specifically admitted that
he did not give any representation to the management regarding his
grievance either after passing of the office order dated 04.1.1990 or
office order dated 06.04.2000 whereby he was promoted to the post
of Assistant Accountant or after passing of the award dated
09.12.2002.
WW-2 also reiterated the same fact.
It is settled proposition of law that no period of limitation
has been provided in Industrial Dispute Act for raising the present
dispute, therefore, the Limitation Act cannot be applied to the
provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. But simultaneously by way of
various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High
Courts, it has been held that dispute must be raised within the
reasonable period of time i.e. before the dispute becomes stale or
cease to exists.
ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata
Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 13/22
14. In Nedunagadi Bank Ltd Vs. K. P. Madhavankutty and
ors 2000 SCC(L&S) 282, Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with
the similar matters of delay, when the dispute was raised by the
workman against his termination after 7 years. While discussing the
relevant provision and application of Limitation Act on Industrial
Dispute Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"Law does not prescribe any time limit for the
appropriate Government to exercise its power under
Section 10 of the Act, it is not that this power can be
exercised at any point of time and to revive matters
which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised
reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to
us to be no rational basis on which the Central
Government has exercised powers in this case after a
lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the
respondent from service. At the time reference was
made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject matter of reference under section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time when the reference in question was made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that two other employees who were dismissed from services were reinstated. Under what circumstances they were dismissed and subsequently reinstated is no where mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising an industrial dispute was ex-facie bad and incompetent." ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 14/22
15. Further in Haryana State Coop Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam (2005) 5 SCC -91, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"It is trite that the courts and tribunals having plenary jurisdiction have discretionary power to grant an appropriate relief to the parties. The aim and object of the Industrial Dispute Act may be to impart social justice to the workman but the same by itself would not mean that irrespective of his conduct a workman would automatically be entitled to relief. The procedural laws like estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are equally applicable to the industrial proceedings. A person in certain situation may even be held to be bound by the doctrine of acceptance sub silentio".
Applying these principles in Ramesh Kumar Vs. Delhi Jal Board in W.P(C) 1034/2011, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held in para no. 9 as:
"9. After having heard the arguments advanced on both the parties and after having gone through the impugned Award, I have come to the conclusion that delay of 6 and a half years in raising the dispute after the termination of his services having not been justified by the petitioner-workman that delay disentitled him to claim any relief and so has been rightly denied the reliefs sought by him. I am in complete agreement with the decision of the Industrial Tribunal and cannot persuade myself to interfere with its Award........"
Similarly, in S. Shalimar Works Limited Vs. Their Workmen AIR 1959 SC 1217, it was held that "though no limitation is prescribed for making reference of the dispute to an Industrial ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 15/22 Tribunal, nevertheless, it has to be made within a reasonable period. In that case delay of 4 years in raising industrial dispute was held to be fatal". Similar view was reiterated in S. M. Nilajkar and others Vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka 2003(4) SCC
27. Relying upon above said authorities, our own Hon'ble High Court in Satbir Singh Vs. Management of Supdtt, Engineer and others 138(2007) DLT 528(DHC) has held that:
"inordinate and unexplained delay in raising industrial dispute would defeat the rights of the workman and would disentitle him to any relief."
16. Ld. AR for management has relied on the case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another ( as reported in 2015) 15 SCC 1 wherein paras no. 36, 38, 41 and 44 that:
"36. Thus, a dispute or difference arises when demand is made by one side( i.e workmen) and rejected by the other side (i.e. the employer) and vice versa. Hence, an "industrial dispute" cannot be said to exist until and unless the demand is made by the workmen and it has been rejected by the employer.... Therefore, what would happen if no demand is made at all at the time when the cause of action arises?.. He cannot after a lapse of several years make a demand and then convert it into a "dispute" what had otherwise become a burried issue."
38. It is now a well-recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 16/22 prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases courts have coined the doctrine of latches and delays as well as doctrine of acquiescenece and non- sited the litigants who approached the Court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. Doctrine of latches is in fact an application of maxim of equity "delay defeats equities".
41. Thus, in those cases where period of limitation is prescribed within which the action is to be brought before the court, if the action is not brought within that prescribed period the aggrieved party loses remedy and cannot enfore his legal right after the period of limitation is over. Likewise, in other cases even where no limitation is prescribed, but for a long period the aggrieved party does not approach the machinery provided under the law for redressal of his grievance, it can be presumed that relief can be denied on the ground of unexplained delay and latches and/or on the presumption that such person has waived his right or acquiesced into the act of other. As mentioned above, these principles as part of equity are based on principles relatable to sound public policy that if a person does not exercise his right for a long time then such a right is non-existent."
44. To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the "appropriate Government" to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words "at any time" used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the ID Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely to have on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of any industry"
17. This tribunal also refers the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Satbir Singh Vs. Management of Supdtd. Engineer ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 17/22 138(2007) DLT 528, wherein para no. 7 it is observed:
".......................It is not in dispute that no limitation is prescribed either under the Industrial Disputes Act or under the Limitation Act for raising industrial dispute and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner has been considerate in condoning even long delays on the part of the workman in raising an industrial dispute but rationale of all these judgments is that every case has to be taken on its facts and circumstances and it is no where held that howsoever an inordinate and unexplained delay may be on the part of the workman, the delay has to be condoned. A judgment, Nedungadi Bank Ltd Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and ors, the Supreme Court has held that the power to condone the limitation cannot be exercised to condone any period of limitation for reviving matter which had since been settled........"
18. From referred judgements, it is clear that although there is no limitation provided in raising industrial dispute but dispute is to be raised within the reasonable period. Raising of industrial Dispute for claiming the wages after several years of the retirement of the workman cannot be considered to be reasonable period.
It is argued by ld. AR for management that there is inordinate delay in filing the present dispute as workmen had retired in the year 2002 and 2003 and the demand notice was sent through the union on 18.05.2011 and thereafter the present reference was sent by the Govt of NCT before this Tribunal vide order dated 26.10.2012. It is apparent from the record that no representation ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 18/22 was given by the workmen either after passing of order dated 04.01.1990 or office order dated 06.04.2000 or even after the award dated 09.12.2002.
Further, demand notice has not been proved in accordance with law as the same has not been exhibited, nor it is complete, last page of the same is missing. It has also not been signed by anyone.
In the present case, the workmen are claiming benefits with effect from 04.01.1990 for which dispute was raised in the year 2012 as the reference was issued in the year 2012. If this Tribunal has to take the date for raising the demand from the demand notice then demand notice has not been proved in accordance with law as observed here-in-above. Hence, the workmen are claiming benefits from 04.1.1990 and the claim was presented before the Labour authorities in the year 2012, i.e. after about 22 long years. If it is to be believed upon the workmen that they were for all the years raising the claim and dispute at different foras, then also, it is not the case of the workmen that the time spent by them has to be adjusted and benefit has to be given in accordance with the law .No such law has been referred by the workmen.
Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered view that in ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 19/22 the light of facts and law discussed here-in-above, the workmen/claimants have not raised the dispute within reasonable time.
Therefore, this issue is answered against the claimants with the finding that the claim of the claimants is not maintainable on ground of latches and belated stage.
19. However, this Tribunal feels necessary to discuss the objection raised by way of issue no. 2 i.e. whether present claim is barred by issue of principles of resjudicata.
It is alleged by the workmen in para no 7 of the claim that an industrial dispute on 08.06.1993 was preferred and reference was made to the court of Sh. P. S. Teji, ld. ADJ. Vide order dated 09.12.2002, it was ordered that only K. L. Sharma and Sh. D. K. Gupta vide order dated 04.1.1990, be given pay scale of Assistant Accountant. It is further the case of the workmen themselves that the other workmen vide order dated 04.01.1990 were not given the award as they did not come to give evidence in that case and accordingly award was restricted only for those two workmen. Thus the same relief claimed was already adjudicated in the claim earlier raised by the present workmen in reference referred on 08.06.1993 ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 20/22 bearing ID no. 71/93 and the workmen herein, themselves chosen not to contest the said claim. Neither they have withdrawn the claim, nor they sought any liberty, nor it is mentioned in this claim that they were compelled by any reason to not contest the said claim. The then Presiding Officer in view of the fact that only two workmen were contesting, had passed award in their favour. It is not the case of the workmen that they were stopped for any reason not to contest the said claim. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered view that this is also another reason to answer the present claim against the workmen inasmuch as workmen have not submitted any reason to not contest the said claim. Nothing has been proved by the workmen during evidence which make them entitle for any benefit whereby they could file the present claim again. It is the case of the workmen that they had preferred a writ petition filed before Hon'ble High Court whereby Hon'ble High Court had directed to approach this Tribunal. However when the claim has to be considered, then, certainly law follow its own course. However, when this Tribunal has to consider all the facts, then, no reason has been argued by the workman to close the eyes for award passed in the claim bearing ID no. 71/93 and the workmen had themselves after filing the said claim had chosen not to contest the said claim. Therefore, they ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 21/22 have to face the consequences in accordance with the law when they had moved the earlier claim but chosen not to contest the said claim. It is further observed that the relief of the earlier claim and the present claim were similar and facts of both the claims were also similar. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the management and against the workmen.
20. Issue no. v) As per terms of reference In view of above observations, claimant is not entitled to any relief in view of the above findings and observations.
21. Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Digitally signed
JITENDRA by JITENDRA
Announced in open Tribunal KUMAR KUMAR MISHRA
Date: 2022.03.04
on this 4th day of March, 2022 MISHRA 04:46:11 +0530
(Jitendra Kumar Mishra)
POIT-I/Rouse Avenue Courts, New
Delhi
ID no. 22/16 B. M. Saxena and anr Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd (new name M/s Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) page no. 22/22