Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
DTC – Petitioner
Versus
Saroop Singh (Through Legal Heir Ajay) – Respondents
W.P (C) No. 6322 & 6687 of 2004
Decided On : 21-09-2017
LABOUR LAW - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 11A - SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - POWER OF LABOUR COURT TO SUBSTITUTE A PUNISHMENT LESSER THAN THAT AWARDED BY THE MANAGEMENT ON THE WORKMAN CONCERNED - WHETHER THE LABOUR COURT CAN SUBSTITUTE AWARD WITH REWARD - WHETHER THE LABOUR COURT HAS ERRED IN INFLICTING UPON SAROOP SINGH, THE PUNISHMENT OF WITHHOLDING 60% OF HIS WAGES FOR THE ENTIRE REMAINDER OF HIS SERVICE, AFTER THE DATE OF HIS REMOVAL.
Fact of the Case:
Saroop Singh, a driver employed by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), was served with a charge-sheet proposing to initiate disciplinary action against him for abetting a fellow driver, Satvir Singh, in unauthorisedly taking out a bus from the depot and for beating a security guard. An enquiry was conducted, in which Saroop Singh fully participated. The Enquiry Officer found Saroop Singh guilty of the charge of beating the security guard, but not of abetment. The DTC removed Saroop Singh from service with immediate effect. Saroop Singh raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted by the DTC was fair and proper, but that the punishment of removal from service was too harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct proved against Saroop Singh. The Labour Court directed the DTC to reinstate Saroop Singh with 40% back wages w.e.f. 24th July 1986 along with the benefit of continuity in service. The DTC challenged the award of the Labour Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while Saroop Singh filed a writ petition seeking reinstatement with full back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Labour Court had not erred in holding that the punishment imposed on Saroop Singh was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against him and that, on that basis reinstating Saroop Singh in service with 40% back wages, as would justify interference, therewith, in writ jurisdiction. The High Court further held that the Labour Court had the power to substitute a punishment lesser than that awarded by the management on the workman concerned, and that the punishment of withholding 60% of Saroop Singh's wages for the entire remainder of his service, after the date of his removal, did not amount to perversity.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court erred in holding that the punishment imposed on Saroop Singh was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against him? 2. Whether the Labour Court had the power to substitute a punishment lesser than that awarded by the management on the workman concerned? 3. Whether the punishment of withholding 60% of Saroop Singh's wages for the entire remainder of his service, after the date of his removal, amounted to perversity?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the Labour Court had not erred in holding that the punishment imposed on Saroop Singh was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against him. The High Court noted that the Labour Court had found that the enquiry conducted by the DTC was fair and proper, and that the charge of abetment against Saroop Singh had not been proved. The High Court also noted that the punishment of removal from service was the harshest punishment that could be imposed on a workman, and that it should be imposed only in cases of gross misconduct. In the present case, the High Court found that the misconduct of Saroop Singh did not warrant the imposition of the punishment of removal from service. 2. The High Court held that the Labour Court had the power to substitute a punishment lesser than that awarded by the management on the workman concerned. The High Court relied on Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which empowers the Labour Court to set aside an order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. 3. The High Court held that the punishment of withholding 60% of Saroop Singh's wages for the entire remainder of his service, after the date of his removal, did not amount to perversity. The High Court noted that the Labour Court had taken into account the fact that Saroop Singh had been found guilty of misconduct, and that the punishment imposed was intended to be a deterrent. The High Court also noted that the punishment was not so harsh as to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the DTC and allowed the writ petition filed by Saroop Singh to the extent that it directed the DTC to reinstate Saroop Singh with 40% back wages w.e.f. 24th July 1986 along with the benefit of continuity in service.
1. These writ petitions are concerned with an award, dated 24th April, 2003, passed by the Labour Court-II in ID 308/1987 (Management of M/s. Delhi Transport Corporation v. its workman Shri Saroop Singh, which directs reinstatement of Saroop Singh-the petitioner in W.P (C) 6687/2004 and respondent in W.P (C) 6322/2004 in service with 40% back wages). WP(C) 6322/2004, by the Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “DTC”), challenges the said award, whereas WP(C) 6687/2004, by the workman Saroop Singh, prays that he be reinstated with full back wages.
2. The controversy before this Court, in the present case, is brief. Saroop Singh, who was employed as a driver by the DTC on 01st February 1982, was served with a charge-sheet, dated 26th September, 1984, proposing to initiate disciplinary action against him, under Regulation 15(2) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations”) read with the Delhi Road Transport Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971. The precise charge, against Saroop Singh, read thus:
“That on 28.08.84 when Sh. Satvir Singh, Driver, B.N. 10740 entered the depot under the influence of liquor, you abetted him to take out the Bus No.DEP-8500 from Okhla Depot-I unauthorisedly at about 22.15 hrs.
That when Sh. Satvir Singh, Driver B.No. 10740 quarreled with Sh. Kishan Dass, Security Guard over the issue of showing the driver’s memo, you alongwith S/Sh. Satvir Singh, Driver, B.No.10740 and Nand Lal, Driver, B.No. 9888 and some others who were already present in the bus started beating the Security Guard, knocked him down and threw him in the Nallah adjacent to the depot gate after breaking and snatching his wrist watch.
That when Sh. Buttan Singh, Security Havaldar and two others intervened, you and your colleagues started beating them also”.
(Emphasis supplied)
3. It was alleged that the above charges constituted “misconduct”, within the meaning of paras 19 (b), (g) and (m) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of DTC employees. Observing that the past record of Saroop Singh would also have to be taken into account, the charge-sheet directed him to submit his explanation, to the above extracted charges, within 10 days.
4. It is not in dispute that, after submission of response by him to the aforementioned charges, a detailed enquiry was conducted, in which Saroop Singh fully participated. It merits mention, in this regard, that Kishan Dass, when specifically queried, stated that, though he had seen several persons belabouring him, he was not certain that Saroop Singh was amongst them, though he might have been.
5. The Enquiry Officer, in his report dated 11th October 1995, ultimately held Saroop Singh guilty of the charge of beating Kishan Dass. However, the allegation of his having been seen in an inebriated condition with his fellow workers was not found to be proved. A complete reading of the Enquiry Report reveals the following:-
(i) The first allegation against Saroop Singh in the charge-sheet, was that he had abetted Satvir Singh in unauthorisedly taking out the bus from the depot. As against this, the Enquiry Officer did not return any finding of abetment, against Saroop Singh. Rather, the Enquiry Officer finds that it was Satvir Singh who brought the bus to the gate, and Saroop Singh had, at the time, gone to the Control Room to obtain the driver’s memo. This finding cannot, by any stretch of imagination to be said to constitute abetment, by Saroop Singh, of Satvir Singh, in removing the bus from the depot, which was the first charge against him.
(ii) The second allegation against Saroop Singh was that he alongwith Satvir Singh, Nand Lal and some others, started beating Kishan Dass, in the course of which, Kishan Dass was thrown in the adjacent Nallah and his wrist watch was broken and snatched. As against this, the finding of the Enquiry Officer, regarding the participation, of Saroop Singh in the melee, was that Satvir Singh, in an
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
