RSA No. 167/2003. Case: Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Shri Subhash Chand. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | RSA No. 167/2003 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: J.N. Aggarwal and Mayank Joshi, Advs. |
| Judges | Indermeet Kaur, J. |
| Issue | Specific Relief Act - Section 41; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(S); Constitution of India - Article 14 |
| Citation | 176 (2011) DLT 177 |
| Judgement Date | December 09, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Indermeet Kaur, J.
-
The present appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 15.5.2003 which had endorsed the finding of the Trial Judge dated 07.2.1996 whereby the suit of the Plaintiff Subhash Chand had been decreed in his favour.
-
The Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction with a prayer that a declaration be passed declaring that the order of punishment dated 16.8.1991 (whereby the Plaintiff was awarded punishment of reduction in his pay scale from Rs. 1130/- to his initial pay scale of Rs. 950/-) be declared unwarranted and void ab initio with a direction that the Defendant be directed to pay the salary of the Plaintiff in terms of his pay scale of Rs. 1130/-.
-
Plaintiff was employed with the DTC as a conductor. He was in the pay scale of Rs. 950-20-1150. He was made a victim of the malpractices of the checking staff. Plaintiff was performing his duties honestly and diligently but due to the connivance of some of the members of the checking staff of the DTC, false allegations had been levelled against him pursuant to which a charge sheet had been filed against the him. This was on 11.11.1997. Enquiry was held which was not in accordance with the procedure established by law and was in violation of the principles of natural justice. No opportunity of fair hearing or to defend his case had been granted to the Plaintiff. He was not afforded proper assistance; he was forced to sign on blank papers; the witnesses of the department were tutored; report of the enquiry officer was illegal, unjust and perverse. The punishment order dated 16.8.1991 is liable to be set aside.
-
The written statement had disputed the allegations in the plaint. It was stated that the suit was barred and liable to be dismissed under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. The Plaintiff being a "workman" it was the "Labour Court alone which had jurisdiction to try the present suit". The conduct of the Plaintiff even otherwise disentitled him to any relief.
-
On the pleadings of the parties, the following four issues were framed:
-
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree for declaration alongwith consequential relief of decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
-
Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed in view of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act and the Plaintiff being workman labour court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the grievance of the Plaintiff as alleged in...
To continue reading
Request your trial