Thu. Dec 3rd, 2020

D.T.C vs Kishan Lal (Mason) on 11 June, 2018

1 min read

2. The present writ petition, by the DTC, is directed thereagainst.
It merits mention that, consequent on the passing of the impugned
Award by the Learned Labour Court, the petitioner reinstated the
respondent in service, albeit on daily wages of ₹ 110.10 per day, vide
order dated 20th July, 2005, even while challenging the said Award
before this Court. The said order of reinstatement, therefore, states that
the respondent’s ―case for back wages and other consequential
benefits will be decided as per the decision of the Hon’ble Court of
law‖.

3. Notice was issued, in the present case, on 2nd September, 2005.
While doing so, this Court stayed the effect and operation of the
impugned Award, subject to deposit, by the petitioner in this Court, of
50% of the back wages awarded by the learned Labour Court, to be
retained in a fixed deposit renewable from time to time. The petitioner
was also directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 7500/-, in this Court, towards
litigation expenses of the respondent, which amount was to be
released, in favour of the respondent, as and when he entered
appearance, irrespective of the outcome of the writ petition.
Consequent on the respondent entering appearance, release, of the said
amount of ₹ 7500/-, in his favour, was directed, vide subsequent order
dated 7th December, 2005.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply