Back
High Court Of Delhi
D.T.C.MAZDOOR CONGRESS - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 1422 of 1985
Decided On : 05/14/1986
REGULATION 9 (B) - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - D. R. T. A. (CONDITIONS OF APPOINTMENT AND SERVICE) REGULATIONS, 1952 - REGULATION 9 (B) GIVES UNGUIDED AND UNBRIDLED POWER TO THE MANAGEMENT TO TERMINATE THE SERVICES OF ANY EMPLOYEE, WHETHER WORKMAN OR SUPERVISOR AND WHETHER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT. SUCH UNBRIDLED POWER IS CAPABLE OF ABUSE AND CAN BE ARBITRARILY EXERCISED WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY OR CHANCE TO AN EMPLOYEE TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE. SUCH AN ARBITRARY PROVISION IS CLEARLY VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND, THEREFORE, MUST BE STRUCK DOWN.
Fact of the Case:
PETITIONERS 2 TO 4, PERMANENT EMPLOYEES OF DTC, WERE TERMINATED FROM SERVICE BY INVOKING REGULATION 9 (B) OF THE D. R. T. A. REGULATIONS. THEY CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION 9 (B) AND THE TERMINATION OF THEIR SERVICES.
Finding of the Court:
REGULATION 9 (B) GIVES ABSOLUTE POWER TO DTC TO TERMINATE THE SERVICES OF ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES WITHOUT SPECIFYING REASONS OR GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE. SUCH A PROVISION IS ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Issues: WHETHER REGULATION 9 (B) OF THE D. R. T. A. REGULATIONS IS ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT REGULATION 9 (B) IS ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION AS IT GIVES UNGUIDED AND UNBRIDLED POWER TO THE MANAGEMENT TO TERMINATE THE SERVICES OF ANY EMPLOYEE WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THEIR CASE.
Final Decision: THE COURT DECLARED REGULATION 9 (B) TO BE ILLEGAL AND ULTRA VIRES AND QUASHED THE ORDERS TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF PETITIONERS 2 TO 4. THE PETITIONERS WERE DEEMED TO BE IN THE SERVICE OF DTC AND WERE ENTITLED TO BACK WAGES AND OTHER BENEFITS.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress, Petitioner No. I and four other employees of the Delhi Transport Corporation, Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as dtc ), wherein the challenge is to the validity of Regulation 9 (a) and (b) of D. R. T. A. (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 and the termination of services of Petitioners 2 to 4.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petition, at the time of termination of their services, Petitioner No. 2 was working as a Conductor since 1969, Petitioner No. 3 was working as an A. T. 1. since 1970 and Petitioner No. 4 was working as a Driver since 1974. All the said petitioners were permanent employees of the DTC. Petitioner No. 5, however, was on probation. The said Petitioners 2 to 4 are members of Petitioner No. I, which is a recognised trade union of the workers employed with the DTC.
( 3 ) IT is alleged that the DTC terminated the services of a driver and a conductor on 15th February, 1985. This led to a reaction of the workers who opposed the action which had been taken against the said employees. The reinstatement of the said workers was demanded. The dispute was not resolved and this led to further spreading of agitation in various depots of DTC and it resulted in complete stoppage of work. The main agitation of the workers was against the use of Regulation 9 (a) and (b) of the D. R. T. A. Regulations. According to the petitioners, the DTC terminated the services of more than 200 workers who were working as probationers / daily wagers. Their services were terminated by invoking Regulation 9 (a) of the Regulations. The service of Petitioner No. 5, who was a probationer, was terminated under that provision. The services of Petitioners 2 to 4, who were permanent employees, were terminated by orders dated 4th June, 1985 by invoking the provisions of Regulation 9 (b ).
( 4 ) THE above mentioned Regulation 9 (a) and (b) of the Regulations were framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 53 of the Delhi Road Transport Authority, Act 1950, which provision enables the formulation of Regulations. Regulation 9 of the said Regulations reads as under :-
"9. Termination of service : (a) Except as otherwise specified in the appointment orders, the services of an employee of the Authority may be terminated without any notice or pay in lieu of notice :
(I) During the period of probation and without assigning any reason thereof.
(II) For misconduct.
(III) On the completion of specific period of appointment.
(IV) In the case of employees engaged on contract for a specific period, on the expiration of such period in accordance with the terms of appointment.
(B) Where the termination is made due to reduction of establishment or in circumstances other than those mentioned at (a) above, one month notice or pay in lieu thereof will be given to all categories of employees.
(C) Where a regular / temporary employee wishes to resign from his post under the Authority he shall give threej one month s notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof to the Authority provided that in special cases, the General Manager may relax, at his discretion, the conditions regarding the period of notice of resignation or pay in lieu thereof. "
( 5 ) MR. V. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that since the filing of this petition, the notices issued under Regulation 9a by DTC to its various employees, including petitioner No. 5, have been withdrawn and all those persons have been reinstated. The effect of this is that at this point of time there is no person who is aggrieved by any action having been taken by DTC under Regulation 9 (a ). The question, therefore, of considering the validity of said Regulation 9 (a) does not arise. We do not intend to consider the validity of the said provision in the abstract or as an academic exercise.
( 6 ) PETITIONERS 2 to 4, against whom action has been taken by DTC b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
