The termination of employment must be in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement depending on the circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

Brief Facts

2. The Petitioner-Corporation (hereinafter 'Corporation') has challenged the impugned orders dated 21st September, 2013 in O.P. No. 501/92 titled M/s Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta and I.D. No. 400/93 titled Shri Raj Kumar Gupta v. Delhi Transport Corporation by which the Respondent-Workman (hereinafter 'Workman') has been awarded reinstatement, after holding that the termination of the Workman was illegal and unjustified and the enquiry conducted by the Corporation was vitiated. Similarly, the Workman was held to be not guilty of misconduct in O.P. No. 501/92, and the approval application of the Corporation was rejected.

3. Before proceeding to the impugned orders, this Court notes that the present matter has had a long history of litigation. a brief background of the present matter is as below.

4. The Workman was appointed as a Conductor with the Corporation on 9th March, 1982, and was in service for a period of approximately 10 years. In January, 1992, it is the case of the Corporation that the Workman was absent unauthorizedly between January to May, 1992, and there were 12 adverse entries also in his service book. The case of the Workman was that his wife was suffering from cancer and accordingly, he had put in applications for leave which were kept pending for sanction by the Corporation. It is not in dispute that the leave was not sanctioned. However, a charge-sheet being charge sheet no.RN-2/aIT/CS-119/92/380, was issued by the Corporation to the Workman on 21st July, 1992, and a domestic enquiry was also conducted by the Corporation. Post the enquiry, a show cause notice dated 29th/30th September, 1992, was issued to the Workman as to why he should not be removed from service due to the misconduct. On 22nd October, 1992, he was removed from service after an enquiry conducted by the Corporation.

5. The Corporation filed an application before the Labour Court seeking approval of its action under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID act. a separate parallel challenge was also raised by the Workman challenging his removal from services.

6. In so far as the approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID act, in O.P. No.501/1992, the Labour Court dismissed the same vide order dated 27th March, 2003, holding the termination to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. This order was challenged in W.P.(C) 3750/2004.

7. Thereafter, order dated 25th November, 2004, was also passed by the Labour Court in ID No.400/93 concerning the validity of the termination of the Workman. Vide the said order, the preliminary issue of enquiry was decided and the enquiry was held to be defective and violative of principles of natural justice. Subsequently, vide order dated 5th July, 2005, the termination of the Workman was held to be illegal and the relief of reinstatement with 60% back wages and other consequential benefits was granted. The operative portion of the said award dated 5th July, 2005, reads as under:

'6. The issue No. 1was framed on the pleadings of the parties regarding domestic enquiry and treated as preliminary I Issue. The Parties were directed to lead evidence on the enquiry issue and thereafter it was decided vide order dated 25.11.2004 in favour of the Workman and against the Management.

7. The well settled law is that if in case enquiry proceedings are vitiated by the order of the Court then Management must be granted opportunity prove misconduct before the Court; The Management was granted more than sufficient opportunities to prove misconduct before the Court since 22.12.2004 to 6,5.2005. The Management failed to adduce any evidence on misconduct, therefore, the Court left with no other option but to close M.E.

The Management also not produced any evidence on gainful employment' Hence Management miserable failed to prove if misconduct against the workman.

RELIEF:

8. On the basis of findings of enquiry