M/s. Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sh. Mahender Singh

Judgment

1. The challenge in the present petition is to an Award dated

20.07.2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court- XVII, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in the matter titled as ‘M/s. Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sh. Mahender Singh’ [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”].

2. The Coordinate Bench of this Court had by an order dated

04.11.2016 passed directions staying the enforcement of the Impugned Award. Thereafter on 15.10.2019, the Petitioner/DTC was directed to produce the relevant medical record of the Respondent/Workman including finding of the Medical Board. The records have since been filed by the Petitioner/DTC on 14.08.2024, during arguments before this Court.

3. Briefly the present case are Respondent/Workman had joined the services of the Petitioner/DTC Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:09.01.2025 00:29:47 W.P.(C) 10360/2016 in the year 1983 as a Retainer Crew Driver and his services were regularized in the year 1985, making him a permanent employee of the Petitioner/DTC.

4. The services of the Respondent/Workman were terminated by the Petitioner/DTC on 16.10.2007 pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. It is the case of the Petitioner/DTC that the Respondent/Workman was absent from his duty from

01.01.2007 to 31.05.2007. An enquiry was held pursuant to which the Respondent/Workman was charge-sheeted on 12.06.2007 for the period of his unauthorized absence.

4.1 The enquiry culminated into an enquiry report dated

14.08.2007, charges against Respondent/Workman to be correct. This led to the issue of a show cause notice dated 13.09.2007 to the Respondent/Workman and which was followed by the order of termination dated 16.10.2007 [hereinafter referred to as “Termination Order”]. The order of termination found the Respondent’s responses not to be satisfactory and imposed a penalty of removal with immediate effect from the services of the Petitioner/DTC.

The order of removal and the penalty imposed were challenged by the Respondent/Workman before the learned Labour Court. In its statement of claim, it was contended by the Respondent/Workman that the Respondent/Workman was not given the list of witnesses and the documents relied on by the Petitioner/DTC before the Enquiry Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:09.01.2025 00:29:47 W.P.(C) 10360/2016 Officer. The Respondent/Workman also alleged that the principles of natural justice were violated as he was not given an opportunity of being heard by the Petitioner/DTC and that the enquiry was not conducted according to the Rules of the Petitioner/DTC.

5.1 It was further contended that the Respondent/Workman was suffering from an illness for a long period and had also submitted leave applications along with his medical certificate for the period of leave, despite which his services were terminated.

6. The Petitioner/DTC filed its written statement before the learned Labour Court wherein it denied that the Respondent/Workman was a hard-working and sincere workman. The Petitioner/DTC sought to rely on the record of the Respondent/Workman which showed that due to unauthorized absence from duty, the Respondent/Workman had been warned on more than one occasion and that penalties had also been imposed on him.

6.1 The Petitioner/DTC submitted that the Respondent/Workman was in the habit of frequent unauthorized absence from duty for which previously as well, he has been punished with stoppage of increments and bringing him on the initial stage of pay of drivers.

6.2 The Petitioner/DTC also denied the charges levied by the Respondent/Workman as baseless and unjustified and the Petitioner/ DTC reiterated its stand the careless attitude of Respondent/Workman towards his duties amounted to a misconduct under para-No. 19(H)(M) of the Standing Orders of Petitioner Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:09.01.2025 00:29:47 W.P.(C) 10360/2016 Department which is annexed as Ex.MW 2/8 before the learned Labour Court. Since, the disciplinary authority of the Petitioner/DTC found the response of the Respondent/Workman unsatisfactory, the orders for termination were issued.

7. The learned Labour Court passed an Award on 20.07.2016 wherein it directed that the Termination Order passed by the Petitioner/DTC was modified extent Respondent/Workmen was to be deemed to have retired on

16.10.2007, and all retiral and consequential benefits be awarded to him within one month from the date of publication of the Award. It is this Award that has been challenged by the Petitioner/DTC.

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/DTC has contended that even though the learned Labour Court did not find any illegality in the decision of the Petitioner/DTC, the learned Labour Court modified the penalty of removal imposed on the Respondent/Workman to that of compulsory retirement from the date of his removal.

8.1 Learned Counsel for Petitioner/DTC submits that this exercise of discretion by the learned Labour Court is arbitrary, given the fact that the Respondent/Workman was habituated with availing of unauthorized leaves. It is further contended that the record of the absences over the 24 years of service show regular and repeated absence of the Respondent/Workman for which penalty was also imposed on the Respondent/Workman including with stoppage of the next 3/4 increments as well as reduction in his pay grade and several Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:09.01.2025 00:29:47 W.P.(C) 10360/2016 warnings were issued to the Respondent/Workman.

8.2 In addition, it is contended that the Impugned Award has given a finding in favour of the Respondent/Workman only on the ground of compassion. It is averred that it is settled law that the Tribunal/Courts cannot reduce punishment of a Workman merely on compassionate grounds. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgements of the Supreme Court in Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate1; M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma2 and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal & Anr3.

8.3 Learned Counsel for Petitioner/DTC further contends that in cases of unauthorized absence, the Courts have held the punishment of removal to be a punishment proportionate to the charge. It is contended that the discretion to interfere with the quantum of punishment has to be exercised judiciously by the learned Labour Court and not in the manner done so in the Impugned Award.

9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Workman, at the outset, submits the basis Impugned Award was not “compassionate”, but the learned Labour Court found the punishment awarded to the Respondent/Workman to be disproportionate to his conduct.

9.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Workman further submits that for a finding of misconduct in the case of an unauthorized