Definition of Reinstatement

Rajbir Singh vs. AJS Sawhney

Filed under: Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Petitioner: Rajbir Singh
Respondents: A.J.S.Sawhney & Anr
Citation: 107(2003) Delhi Law Times 69
Court: In the High court of Delhi
Judge: Vikramajit Sen

Facts

This case was initially filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the order of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). Rajbir Singh was prematurely retired on medical grounds. The High Court had allowed his appeal and ordered DTC to reinstate him and pay all back wages.

DTC had gone on appeal twice after this. Rajbir had received favourable orders from all the Courts. The Supreme Court had directed the DTC to take Rajbir back in service and reimburse his salary from the day he was terminated from service.

The DTC, however, did not comply with the order, compelling Rajbir to file the present application. He contended that DTC had paid part of the arrears in salary but not the other dues of allowances, bonus etc. Rajbir brought this to the notice of the Manager of the Depot he had been working in, but had received no response.

Observations of the Court

The Court explained that reinstatement meant treating the workman's services as not being terminated at all and that he is deemed to have always been in service. Further, after examining Section 47 of the Act, the Court observed that DTC had committed Contempt of Court by ignoring the order of the Court.

It had also ignored the mandate of the Parliament. It was held that DTC was punishable under the Contempt of Court Act. In response, the Depot Manager apologised for the delay in payment and issued a cheque for the due amount. In view of the same, the Court directed DTC to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- within four weeks from the present order.

Sections Referred:

Cases referred:

  • (1984) 1 SCC 509
  • (1971) Lab. I.C. 518.