The court emphasized the importance of compliance with principles of natural justice in conducting enquiries and held that the punishment imposed should be proportionate to the misconduct proved.

SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 20.07.2009 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma, Delhi in ID No.209/08/97 vide which the petitioner management was directed to reinstate the petitioner in the same post with same pay scale as at the time of his removal and the workman was held entitled for continuity of service with respect to his seniority, gratuity and pension, however, no backwages were awarded.

2. The respondent (hereinafter referred as ‘workman’) was employed as a bus driver in the petitioner corporation with effect from 30.09.1983. The depot manager of the petitioner issued a chargesheet to the workman for being absent without permission for a period of 133 days during the period 01.01.1991 to 31.12.1991. As the workman failed to respond to the charge, the departmental enquiry was initiated and the workman was intimated about the date of enquiry, however, he failed to appear as such, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted on 24.06.1993. The enquiry officer found the charges proved and gave his findings on 24.06.1993. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 27.07.1993 was served upon the workman proposing to remove him from the services of the corporation. As the workman did not reply to the show cause notice, the corporation based on his past record removed the workman from the services of the corporation on 15.12.1993. The workman made an appeal cum demand notice to the petitioner claiming his removal as illegal and unjustified and sought reinstatement with full backwages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. Thereafter, the dispute was referred for adjudication by the government vide its order dated 17.12.1997 with the following terms of reference:

“Whether the removal of Shri Om Dutt from service is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

3. The workman filed his claim petition justifying his absence as being regularised under the rules as he remained without paid. He further pleaded that the chargesheet was illegal, invalid and infructuous whereas the enquiry was conducted by incompetent person in an unfair, improper manner without supplying the list of witnesses and documents. On the other hand, management in its reply contended that the workman was never terminated. He was removed after conducting a proper enquiry, as per rules and principles of natural justice. He was given full opportunity to defend himself.

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

(i) Whether the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and if so, its effect?

(ii) As per the terms of reference?

5. The enquiry issue was decided against the petitioner management vide order dated 10.04.2008 holding that the enquiry was in violation of principles of natural justice. In the written statement the management had made a prayer that in case the management fails to prove the issue of validity of enquiry and the enquiry issue is decided against the management then management may be allowed to prove the charges before the Court. In view of this prayer, management was granted liberty to prove misconduct against the workman. Evidence was led by the parties. Vide order dated 20.07.2009, the Labour Court allowed the claim of the workman by holding that the enquiry conducted against the workman was vitiated due to non-compliance of principles of natural justice, order of removal of workman is disproportionate to the “misconduct proved” because the master attendance register for the year 1991 was not produced and the charge of being absent without authorisation is defective in not specifying (a) the period for which no applications for leave were received by the petitioner; (b) the period for which applications for leave were received but rejected and the grounds for such reje