Unauthorized absence from work, lack of interest in work, and lack of devotion to duty can constitute misconduct justifying removal from service, as per the Standing Orders of the employer.

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

1. The petitioner, Deen Dayal S/o Sh. Lal Singh vide the present petition has assailed the impugned award dated 4.11.2016 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court XVII, Karkardooma Courts Complex, New Delhi in LIR No.6820/2016 (Old No.24/08) whereby the reference made by the Government of NCT of Delhi vide order dated 06.02.2008 F.24(1306)/06/Lab./1374-78 to the effect;

“Whether the punishment of removal from service imposed by the management on Sh. Deen Dayal S/o Sh. Lal Singh, conductor, Badge No.10530 vide order dated 01.04.92 is illegal and/or unjustified; and if yes, to what relief is he entitled?”

was answered to the effect that the of the workman, i.e., the petitioner herein, Sh. Deen Dayal, who had claimed that he had been illegally removed from the services of the respondent management illegally on 1.4.1992 was dismissed, and it had been held by the Labour Court that the claimant i.e., the workman, i.e., the present petitioner herein, was not entitled to any relief.

2. The petitioner, apart from seeking the setting aside of the impugned award dated 4.11.2016 of the Labour Court also sought that the removal of the petitioner from the services of the respondent be declared illegal and unjustified and that he be held entitled to the relief of reinstatement of service along with full back wages and all consequential benefits thereto, it having been held vide the impugned award that the claimant, i.e., the workman/the petitioner herein, had been unauthorizedly absent from the duty for 174 days w.e.f. 1.1.1991 to 31.8.1991 and that thus this long absence showed complete lack of devotion to duty and consequently termination of services of the claimant, i.e., the petitioner herein, by the respondent was not disproportionate to his proved misconduct.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent was present on advance notice of the petition and on the petition having been listed for the date 11.7.2017 when initial submissions were made on behalf of either side and the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Anuj Aggarwal and the learned counsel for the respondent Mr.Sarfarz Khan sought to place reliance on judicial precedents copies of which have been submitted on record by either side and the petitioner has thus been taken up for final disposal.

4. As observed vide the impugned award dated 4.11.2016, the claimant, i.e., the petitioner herein had claimed that he was working with the management as a ‘Conductor’ with Badge No.10530 and token No.21520 and had worked honestly and diligently with the management but had been removed from services illegally on 1.4.1992 and had not been afforded any opportunity of being heard and no charge sheet had been sent to him and he was not informed about any enquiry officer nor was he given any intimation about the proceedings held by the Enquiry Officer and that the only allegation against him was that he was absent from duty for a period of 174 days from January, 1991 to August, 1991 but he had sent his leave application due to bona fide and genuine grounds which had not been considered by the management. As observed in the impugned award dated 4.11.2016 vide order dated 6.4.2016 of the Labour Court it had been held that no notice had been given by the management to the claimant to participate in the inquiry proceedings which were thus violative of the principles of natural justice.

5. As brought forth through the impugned award itself, the written statement submitted by the management was to the effect that the reporter had submitted a report dated 12.4.1991 of unauthorized absence of the claimant, the petitioner herein, for 174 days from 1.1.1991 to 31.8.1991 on which report the charge sheet dated 13.9.91 had been issued to which the workman had not replied and thus a domestic enquiry was entrusted to the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 22.11.1991 and the Enquiry Officer