DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SH. BAHADUR SINGH

Judgment

1. Following a strike which took place in its premises between 17 to 19 March 1988, the Delhi Transport Corporation1 dismissed a large number of its employees, invoking the provisions of the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981 read with the second proviso to Regulation 15(2)(c) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952. The dismissed employees approached this Court by way of various writ petitions alleging violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Signature Not Verified 1 (cid:147)DTC(cid:148), hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:09.03.2026 15:03:53 LPA 490/2014 Act, 19472. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 20 December 1988, directed the petitioners to pursue their remedies in terms of Section 33 of the ID Act and, wherever orders of punishment had been passed, relegated the petitioners to the competent appellate authority. Even in the event that the punishment was found to be in contravention of Section 33 of the ID Act, the Court, in conformity with the said provision, directed the Industrial Disputes Tribunal3 to further examine whether the order of discharge or dismissal passed by the DTC was justified on merits.

2. We are concerned in this case only with one of the said striking employees i.e. Bahadur Singh, the respondent before us.

3. On 4 April 1989, a notice was sent to the respondent directing him to appear before the Appellate Authority. The respondent did so and denied the charges against him. The Appellate Authority, vide

order dated 24 March 1988, confirmed the decision to dismiss the respondent from service. The respondent approached the Tribunal under Section 33 of the ID Act seeking quashing of the order dated 24 March 1988 whereby he was dismissed from service and consequently seeking reinstatement with full back wages, etc.

4. The Tribunal, vide order dated 11 August 1999, found that the dismissal was in violation of Section 33 of the ID Act. The DTC, however, sought permission to prove the charges against respondent on merits. In these circumstances, the Tribunal framed the Signature Not Verified 2 (cid:147)ID Act(cid:148), hereinafter 3 (cid:147)the Tribunal(cid:148) hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:09.03.2026 15:03:53 LPA 490/2014 following issues for consideration : (cid:147)(a) Whether the respondent joined the strike and committed misconduct as alleged in the reply to the complaint filed under Section 33A of the I.D Act. (b) Relief.(cid:148)

5. The Tribunal held the finding of misconduct against respondent to be justified as he had admittedly participated in the strike. However, the Tribunal found the penalty of dismissal imposed upon him to be disproportionate to his misconduct and accordingly, modified the penalty, directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity in service and 25% back wages.

6. The DTC assailed the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal before this Court in a batch of writ petitions, which included WP (C) 6863/2001 instituted by the respondent. By order dated 3 February 2005, this Court dismissed all the writ petitions. LPA 1634/2005 was preferred by the DTC against the said decision. The Division Bench of this Court, vide its judgment in DTC v. Jagbhushan Lal4, held that the learned Single Judge had erred in clubbing the writ petition with other writ petitions, as the present writ petition dealt with a case in which a finding of misconduct had been returned against respondent. Accordingly, WP (C) 6863/2001 was remanded for reconsideration by the learned Single Judge.

7. It is thus that the presently impugned judgment has come to be passed, consequent on the said remand proceedings. Signature Not Verified 4 132 (2006) DLT 384 (DB) Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:09.03.2026 15:03:53 LPA 490/2014

8. In view of the finding that the respondent was an employee against whom there is a positive finding of misconduct, the learned Single Judge correctly noted that the only issue for consideration by him was as to whether the Industrial Tribunal had correctly interfered with the quantum of penalty, treating it as disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the respondent. In this regard, the learned Single Judge holds thus, in paras 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment: is disproportionate (cid:147)12. Now the only question which needs to be considered in this case is whether the conclusion of the Tribunal on issue No.2 that the penalty of dismissal is dis-proportionate to the misconduct of the respondent No.1. The law is well settled in this regard. The reasoning given by the Tribunal in holding that the penalty of dismissal respondent No.1 participated in the strike and instigated the workers to strike the work and he did so in response to the cause of the employees of the DTC. According to the Tribunal the employees were asking for the implementation of recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission. The Tribunal adjudicated the matter in favour of the workmen. The cause for which the respondent No.1 committed misconduct was common to all the Tribunal also the employees. That apart observed that the petitioner intended to consider the case of the to fulfilling certain respondent No.1 for reinstatement subject conditions including expressing of regret for joining the strike. I find that the Tribunal has given justifiable reasons in

13. interfering with the order of penalty.(cid:148)

9. Having thus found that there was no error in the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, to the extent it held the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him, the learned Single Judge held that the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% back wages on the last drawn wages, as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:09.03.2026 15:03:53 LPA 490/2014 this was not one of the penalties envisaged in Rule 15(2) of the Regulations.

10. The learned Single Judge was, however, of the view that, as the misconduct found against the petitioner was not one which justified his removal or dismissal from service, the DTC was required to re- examine the aspect of the penalty to be imposed. Consequently, the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service and the DTC was directed to re-consider the aspect of the penalty to be awarded to him.

11. Paras 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment, which contain the operative directions of the learned Single Judge read thus: a view that The Tribunal (cid:147)14. penalty was disproportionate should have confined itself to the listed penalties and not anything beyond it. Since the Tribunal has failed to substitute the penalty of dismissal with the listed penalties, this Court is of the view that the appropriate would be to remand the case back to the Appellate Authority keeping in view the conclusion of the Tribunal that the penalty of dismissal being disproportionate to the misconduct, and the penalty of removal would also entail forfeiture of the entire service, appropriate listed penalty except the penalty of removal and dismissal be imposed and the said penalty would relate back to the date of the award i.e. August 14, 2000. The respondent No.l would stand reinstated (if not attained the age of superannuation) in view of the limited scope of penalty to be imposed by the Appellate Authority, and on such penalty the respondent No.l would be entitled to the arrears of pay with effect from August 14, 2000 only. It is made clear that the respondent No.l would not be entitled to any back wages between the period March 24, 1988 till August 14, 2000 but the said period would be treated on duty for the purpose of seniority, promotion, notional increments/pay fixation and pension etc. Accordingly, I set aside the order of the Tribunal to the limited extent the Tribunal had granted the relief of reinstatement and continuity in service with25% back wages on last wages drawn.

15. The Appellate Authority shall pass appropriate orders on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:09.03.2026 15:03:53 LPA 490/2014 penalty in terms of the directions in para No. 14 of this order within a period of 2 months from today and grant benefits, thereon within two months thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the above.(cid:148)

12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the DTC has filed the present LPA.

13. We have heard Ms. Aliza Alam, learned Counsel for the DTC/appellant and Mr. Vivek Sood, learned Senior Counsel for the employee/respondent.

14. Ms. Alam submits that the learned Single Judge was in error, inasmuch as he failed to notice that the Tribunal had not returned any positive findings as were required to be returned in law before arriving at a conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service, awarded to the respondent the misconduct committed by him, was disproportionate.

15. She has placed reliance on para 30 of Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka5, para 18 of Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen6 and para 14 of U.B. Gadhe & Ors. v. G.M. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Pvt. Ltd7, all rendered by the Supreme Court.

16. We have considered the submissions but do not find any case made out for us to interfere with the decision of the learned Single