Skip to content


Delhi Transport Corporation vs.ravinder Kumar - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Delhi High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Delhi Transport Corporation

Respondent

Ravinder Kumar

Excerpt:


.....appeared on behalf of respondents- workmen, but as per last order, none had appeared on behalf of respondents-workmen. same is the position today.4. upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the material on record, i find that the impugned order directing payment of back- wages while relying upon the order of cat cannot be sustained as the order of the cat is sub judice before a division bench of this court.5. in the facts and circumstances of this case, impugned order is hereby set aside, with liberty to respondents-workmen to file fresh application under section 33-c(2) of the industrial disputes act, 1947, after the orders are passed by the division bench as well as supreme court in the case of the parties.6. with aforesaid directions, these petitions and the pending applications are accordingly disposed of. (sunil gaur) judge december06 2018 s w.p.(c) 9836/2017 & connected matters page 2 of 2

Judgment:


* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: December 06, 2018 Through: Mr. U.N. Tiwary, Advocate ........ Petitioner

+ W.P.(C) 9836/2017 & CM APPL. 40039/2017 + W.P.(C) 9839/2017 & CM APPL. 40049/2017 + W.P.(C) 9840/2017 & CM APPL. 40051/2017 + W.P.(C) 9841/2017 & CM APPL. 40053/2017 + W.P.(C) 9842/2017 & CM APPL. 40055/2017 + W.P.(C) 9843/2017 & CM APPL. 40058/2017 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus PERMOD KUMAR MANMOHAN RAVINDER KUMAR INDERJEET SOLANKI ASHOK KUMAR DINESH YADAV .....Respondents 1. Through: Nemo CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

(ORAL)... RESPONDENTS

-Workmen’s applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to claim arrear of wages have been allowed by the trial court while relying upon an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’). W.P.(C) 9836/2017 & connected matters Page 1 of 2 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order passed by the CAT is sub judice before a Division Bench of this Court and the order of CAT has been stayed. It is also stated that Supreme Court has also stayed the deposit of back-wages and the matter is sub judice and will take time.

3. Initially some counsel had appeared on behalf of respondents- Workmen, but as per last order, none had appeared on behalf of respondents-Workmen. Same is the position today.

4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the material on record, I find that the impugned order directing payment of back- wages while relying upon the order of CAT cannot be sustained as the order of the CAT is sub judice before a Division Bench of this Court.

5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, impugned order is hereby set aside, with liberty to respondents-Workmen to file fresh application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, after the orders are passed by the Division Bench as well as Supreme Court in the case of the parties.

6. With aforesaid directions, these petitions and the pending applications are accordingly disposed of. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE DECEMBER06 2018 s W.P.(C) 9836/2017 & connected matters Page 2 of 2


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //