Union Of India & Anr vs Bhushan Lal And Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~1 & 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Date of Decision: 03 August, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010000051988
+ W.P.(C) 136/1988
UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.M. Arif, Mr. S.M. Aatif,
Ms. Shabnam Perween,
Advocates.
versus
BHUSHAN LAL AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K. De and Ms. Ananya
De, Advocates.
# CNR No. DLHC011372872015
+ W.P.(C) 4237/2015 & CM APPL. 7672/2015
BHUSHAN LAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. De and Ms. Ananya
De, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, CGSC for
UOI with Mr. Rajat
Chowdhary, Mr. Rajender Nath
Sarma, Advocates.
Mr. S.M. Arif, Mr. S.M. Aatif,
Ms. Shabnam Perween,
Advocates for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
1. The W.P. (C) No.136/ 1988 was filed assailing the Award dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.08.2026
18:14:42
W.P.(C) 136/1988 & W.P.(C) 4237/2015 Page 1 of 13
28.04.1987, passed by the learned Central Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court (hereinafter “ CGIT ”) in favour of the
Workman/Bhushan Lal, holding that the termination of his services
was illegal and thus, directing the Petitioner to reinstate him with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2. The W.P. (C) No. 4237/2015 is the cross-petition, filed by the
Workman/ Bhushan Lal, seeking complete implementation of the
aforementioned Award dated 28.04.1987. It is alleged that despite
directions passed by this Court vide Orders dated 17.10.2011 and
14.11.2011 in W.P. (C) 3214 /2010, the award has not been complied.
3. Succinctly stated, the Workman/ Bhushan Lal had approached
the learned CGIT raising an industrial dispute claiming that though he
had been working with All India Radio, as a Carpenter in grade 320-
400 since 17.12.1981, his services were illegally terminated vide
Order dated 22.07.1983 (w.e.f. 30.07.1983), without following the due
procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. Vide the Award dated 28.04.2017, the learned CGIT held that
the order of termination of the service of the workman is bad for the
non-Compliance of the provisions of Section 25 F(b) of the I.D. Act
and is void ab-initio, thus, directing the All India Radio to reinstate
the Workman with continuity of services and full back wages.
5. Aggrieved, the Petitioners assailed the above Award dated
28.04.1987 by way of the present Writ Petition bearing W.P. (C) No.
136/ 1988 , essentially on the ground that the learned CGIT has erred
in holding the All India Radio as an “ industry ” under the I.D. Act,
1947.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.08.2026
18:14:42
W.P.(C) 136/1988 & W.P.(C) 4237/2015 Page 2 of 13
6. After hearing the matter, this Court, vide Order dated
20.03.1990, transferred the writ to the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal. The relevant extract is reproduced herein below: -
“ This writ petition is directed against the
order of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal in ID.6/86, decided on 28.4.87, holding
that the termination of the respondent was void ab-
initio for non-compliance of the provisions of
Section 25-F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
respondent was employed as a Carpenter in the All
India Radio by appointment order dated 6.5.82. The
post of Carpenter is a general Civil Service Class-
III, nongazetted, non-ministerial post. The pay-scale
in which the respondent was appointed was Rs.300-
400 with the usual allowances then payable to the
government servants. The appointment order stated
that he was governed by Central Civil Service
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, In case the
Government thought fit to remove the respondent
the appointment order laid down probation period
of two years. In regard to other conditions of
service such as leave, travelling allowance, etc, he
was to be governed by the all India Central
Government Rules.
The contention of the Union of India before
the Tribunal was that the matter was not governed
by the Industrial Disputes Act and that he was
governed by the Rules framed by the Government
Of India under Article 309 of the Constitution. The
Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that the
Industrial Disputes Act decided the matter and
that All India Radio was an Industry . The Tribunal
came to the second conclusion in regard to the All
India Radio being an Industry on the basis of the
Division Bench Judgement of Madhya Pradesh
High Court, reported as Mgmt, of All India Radio
Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal &
Another (Factory Law Report 1987 Page 58).
Counsel for the petitioner has, however,
brought to my notice the order of the Supreme
Court passed on 17.4.89 in SLP No. 3162 of 1987
whereby the SLP was granted against the said
decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The
appeal is pending in the Supreme Court. We will,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.08.2026
18:14:42
W.P.(C) 136/1988 & W.P.(C) 4237/2015 Page 3 of 13
therefore, have to proceed on the footing that the
respondent was a government employee and was
not governed by the Industrial Disputes Act
Counsel for the respondent has raised a
preliminary objection stating that if the respondent
was to be treated as a Central Government
employee, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear
the petition and the same should be transferred to
the Central Administrative Tribunal. There is
merit in the submission. By virtue of the
Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 all pending
writ petitions in regard to the Central Government
employees are to be transferred to the Central
Administrative Tribunal.
In view of this, I direct this writ petition to be
transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Central Administrative Tribunal will dispose of
the petition after issuing notice to both the parties.
The writ petition stands disposed of with this
order.”
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Accordingly, the Writ was renumbered and registered as O.A.
No. T-4/90. The O.A. was dismissed vide Order dated 20.02.1997, as
not maintainable, by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. The
relevant extract is reproduced herein below: -
" This is an application filed by Union of
India under Section 9 of the AT Act, 1985
challenging the award dated 28.04.1987 of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New
De/hi. We have rejected almost an identical
application today and for the reasons stated in the
said Order passed in O.A. No. 2672/1996, this
application is also dismissed as not maintainable
on the basis of the recent decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court Order passed in O.A. No.
2672/1996 shall also form part of the final Order
of this application as well. There is no Order as to
cost.”
8. Thereafter, the Workman, approached this Court by way of
W.P. (C) No. 3214/2010 , seeking implementation of the Award dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.08.2026
18:14:42
W.P.(C) 136/1988 & W.P.(C) 4237/2015 Page 4 of 13
28.04.1987. The writ petition was allowed vide Order dated
17.10.2011, as under, with specific directions to the Petitioner to
implement the Award: -
“More time is sought on behalf of the
respondents for filing counter affidavit. I find that
earlier time was granted to the respondents on 12th
May, 2010 for the first time but till date counter
affidavit could not be filed. Respondents have
already got more than sufficient time to submit their
response. Counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that
since the matter is quite old the relevant records
being not traceable the reply could not be prepared.
However, this is no justification for granting further
time to the respondents for submitting its response
in the matter in which the petitioner-workmen
seeking implementation of the award passed by the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal way back
in the year 1987 directing his reinstatement in
service with full back wages. Accordingly request
for more time is declined.
Since there is no denial of respondent no.
1, no. 2 regarding non-implementation of the
award by the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal it has to be accepted that the award has
not been implemented till date. This writ petition is
accordingly disposed by directing the petitioner to
implement the award dated 28.04.1987 in 1D No.
6/1936 within one month from today failing 1-uhich
the petitioner would be at liberty to have recourse
to any other legal remedy which may be available
to him for non- compliance of this direction. The
respondent no. 1 is also burdened with costs of
15,000 for dragging a workman to Court
unnecessarily. "
9. Thereafter, the Workman approached this Court by way of
C.M. 18071/2011, seeking clarification of the above order, which was
allowed vide order dated 14.11.2011 and instead of the “ Petitioner ” in
the second paragraph, the All India Radio was directed to implement
the Award.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.08.2026
18:14:42
W.P.(C) 136/1988 & W.P.(C) 4237/2015 Page 5 of 13
10. Admittedly, the Workman/Bhushan Lal was re-engaged on
10.12.2012 and was given back wages for the period 31.07.1983 to
28.04.1987.
11. The Workman/Bhushan Lal, remained aggrieved that the back
wages have been paid only till the date of the passing of the Award
and not till 10.12.2012 i.e. when he was reinstated and he has also
been denied continuity of services and other consequential benefits
such as fixation of salary, bonus, leave encashment, pensionary
benefits etc.
12. Thus, several representations/letters dated 27.09.2013,
17.01.2014 and 07.04.2014 were sent by the Workman seeking
complete implementation the Award.
13. After exchange of several correspondences, the All Inda Radio,
via letter dated 30.04.2014, conveyed to the workman that all the dues
and other service-related benefits have already been paid and any
claim beyond the date of the impugned Award is not acceptable.
14. Thereafter, the Workman filed a Contempt Petition Bearing
Civil Contempt Petition No. 848/2014, which was dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 28.11.2014.
15. The Workman superannuated on 01.12.2014.
16. The Writ Petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 4237/2015 came to be
filed by the Workman, seeking complete implementation of the
Award, stating that though he had been reinstated on 2012, till date he
has not received full back wages till his date of re-instatement and
consequential benefits such as pension in terms of the Award.
17. In the interim, this Court, vide Order dated 01.08.2019 passed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.08.2026
18:14:42
W.P.(C) 136/1988 & W.P.(C) 4237/2015 Page 6 of 13
in W.P. (C) 4237/2015 , revived the W.P. (C) No. 136/1988 , by
observing that once the issue was not decided on merits by the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, the same should have been
transferred back to this Court. Consequently, the Order dated
20.02.1997 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal was
set-aside, as under: -
“ 1. Arguments partly heard.
2. The petitioner is seeking implementation of
the award dated 28th April, 1987 passed by the
Industrial Tribunal. Learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2
challenged the award before this Court in Writ
Petition bearing No. 136/1988 which was
transferred by this Court to the Central
Administrative Tribunal on 20th March, 1990. It is
further submitted that Central Administrative
Tribunal vide order dated 20th February, 1997
declined to adjudicate the petition on the ground
that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition
against the award of the Labour Court. The Central
Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petition on
the issue of maintainability.
3. This Court is of the view that the order
dated 20th February, 1997 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal is absolutely illegal. If
Central Administrative Tribunal had no
jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the order of
the Labour Court, Central Administrative Tribunal
should have gracefully transferred the matter back
to this Court.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2
submits that the order dated 20th February, 1997 be
set aside and the Writ Petition bearing No. 136/1988
be revived and be adjudicated by this Court to which
counsel for the petitioner has no objection.
5. In exercise of power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the order dated 20th
February, 1997 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal is set aside and Writ
Petition No.136/1988 is revived. The Central
Administrative Tribunal is directed to send back
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.08.2026
18:14:42
W.P.(C) 136/1988 & W.P.(C) 4237/2015 Page 7 of 13
the record of O.A. 2672/1996.
6. Both the parties are directed to file the
relevant pleadings of Writ Petition bearing No.
136/1988 whereupon the Registry shall reconstruct
the file of W.P.(C) 136/1988 and list before this
Court on the next date of hearing.
7. List for continuation of the arguments on
04th November, 2019.
8. The petitioner shall remain present in Court
on the next date of hearing.
9. The competent officer of respondent No.2
shall also remain present in Court on the next date
of hearing.”
18. On being pointedly asked about the admission recorded in
Order dated 17.20.2011 in W.P.(C) 3214/2014, that “ Since there is no
denial of respondent no. 1, no. 2 regarding non-implementation of the
award by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal it has to be
accepted that the award has not been implemented till date.” the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Counsel therein
had appeared on behalf of the All India Radio without informing the
Department or receiving any instructions. The Department was not
served as well. Though All India Radio filed a Review against the
same, it is submitted that the Review was dismissed.
19. He further submits that the Award had been given effect to and
the Workman had already been re-engaged in services in the year
2012 and the Award has already been implemented. On merits, it is
submitted that the Workman has been paid all dues and he cannot
claim any amount for the days he has not rendered any services.
20. The learned Counsel on behalf of the Workman, submits that
the sole premise on which the Order dated 20.03.1990 was passed,
(remanding the matter to the learned Central Administrative Tribunal),
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.08.2026
18:14:42
W.P.(C) 136/1988 & W.P.(C) 4237/2015 Page 8 of 13
was that SLP against the Judgment passed by the High Court of
Madhaya Pradesh, on which the learned CGIT has relied to hold that
the All India Radio is an “ industry ”, is pending before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. However, now the issue has been decided by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by judgment dated 05.02.1998 passed in Civil
Appeals No.s 2423/1989 with Civil Appeals No. s 2135/1993 & 775-
776/1998/1989 titled All India Radio v. Santosh Kumar and Ors.
whereby it has been held that All India Radio and Doordarshan are
industries within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. Hence,
the learned CGIT alone would have had jurisdiction to decide the
issue at hand.
21. Notably, the record indicates that though the present matter was
remanded to the learned Central Administrative Tribunal by Order
dated 20.03.1990, on the ground that SLP is pending before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment holding All India Radio
as an “ industry ”, the disputes on merits were neither decided by the
learned Central Administrative tribunal nor by any other forum apart
from the learned CGIT. Consequently, the Award dated 28.04.1987
was never set aside or modified by any competent forum. This Court,
while reviving the present writ petition by order dated 01.08.2019,
specifically noticed that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal
ought to have remitted the matter back to this Court instead of
dismissing it on the ground of maintainability. Thus, throughout this
period, the Award continued to subsist and remained
operative/binding.
22. Even otherwise, the principal challenge in W.P.(C)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.08.2026
18:14:42
W.P.(C) 136/1988 & W.P.(C) 4237/2015 Page 9 of 13
No.136/1988 rested on the contention that All India Radio did not
constitute an " industry " within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, consequently, the learned CGIT
lacked jurisdiction to entertain the industrial dispute. However, during
the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioners fairly
conceded that the said issue no longer survives in view of the
authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All
India Radio v. Santosh Kumar & Ors. , (Supra) wherein it has been
categorically held that All India Radio and Doordarshan are industries
within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The very
foundation of the challenge to the impugned Award, therefore, stands
eclipsed.
23. Significantly, even the conduct of the Petitioners demonstrates
that the Award ultimately came to be accepted and was implemented.
Pursuant to the orders dated 17.10.2011 and 14.11.2011 passed by this
Court directing implementation of the Award, the Workman was
reinstated in service on 10.12.2012 and was also paid back wages up
to the date of the Award.
24. In view of the above acceptance of the Award, no arguments on
the merits were addressed and, in any case, any dispute surviving with
regard to the legality of the Award itself would be rendered academic
once the same has been accepted/implemented by the Department.
25. As regards the grievance of the Workman with respect to the
extent of implementation of the Award, it has already been noted in
the Award that the workman had joined in 1981 and the termination
took place in July, 1983, the Witness of the Management-Shri J.K.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.08.2026
18:14:42
W.P.(C) 136/1988 & W.P.(C) 4237/2015 Page 10 of 13
Gupta had admitted that the workman had rendered more than 240
days of service and since the termination of the Workman amounted
to retrenchment, the provisions of the Section 25 F of the I.D. Act
were required to be complied with. The non-compliance rendered the
termination illegal and thus, relief of reinstatement with full back
wages was granted. The Award was rendered in April, 1987 and the
Workman ultimately came to be reinstated in December, 2012. He
thereafter continued in service only till his superannuation on
01.12.2014. More than 4 decades have elapsed since the dispute first
arose. He has served the Department for about 4 years.
26. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution, this Court is also empowered to mould the
relief/grant monetary compensation to subserve the ends of justice,
having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The
jurisdiction is equitable in nature and does not compel the Court to
grant relief mechanically where doing so would result in impracticable
consequences.
27. Keeping the above in mind, and the need to bring finality to a
dispute which has remained alive for more than 4 decades, this Court
is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be better served by
awarding lump-sum compensation to the Workman instead of
directing an exercise to ascertain disputed claims regarding
computation of wages/revisions/increments/pension etc. which would
inevitably generate yet another round of litigation. Hence, it is
directed that a lump-sum amount of ₹6,00,000/- be paid to the
Workman, within 8 weeks from date, towards full and final settlement
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.08.2026
18:14:42
W.P.(C) 136/1988 & W.P.(C) 4237/2015 Page 11 of 13
of all claims arising out of the incomplete implementation of the
Award.
28. Before parting, this Court cannot overlook the manner in which
the Petitioners and the Department has dealt with the Award. The
Award was passed as far back as on 28.04.1987. Even after the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal declined jurisdiction in 1997,
no effective steps were taken by the Petitioners to have the challenge
restored before the appropriate forum. Instead, the Workman was
constrained to approach this Court once again seeking implementation
of an Award which had remained operative throughout. Despite the
directions issued by this Court on 17.10.2011 requiring
implementation of the Award, reinstatement was affected only on
10.12.2012. The Workman was thus compelled to engage in avoidable
and protracted litigation for decades merely to secure the fruits of an
Award passed in his favour.
29. Public authorities are expected to act as model employers and
cannot prolong industrial disputes indefinitely by procedural lapses
and administrative inaction. Such conduct deserves to be appropriately
deprecated.
30. Accordingly, the interests of justice would, therefore, be
adequately served by imposing costs upon the Petitioners, UOI & All
India Radio and Doordarshan for the attitude as noted above which
has led to decades of litigation engaging not only the workman but
also the courts. The Petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.
1,00,000/-, in addition to the lump-sum compensation amount, to the
Workman within a period of eight weeks from date. The Petitioners
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.08.2026
18:14:42
W.P.(C) 136/1988 & W.P.(C) 4237/2015 Page 12 of 13
are granted liberty to recover the cost amount from persons
responsible for such handling of the dispute.
31. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of. The pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
AUGUST 3, 2026
DU
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.08.2026
18:14:42
W.P.(C) 136/1988 & W.P.(C) 4237/2015 Page 13 of 13