Unauthorized absence without prior permission may amount to misconduct, and the principles of natural justice must be complied with in conducting an enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner/Management is challenging the Award dated 13.02.2003. (‘Impugned Award’), passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in O.P. No. 297/1994 titled as Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sh. Yad Ram.

RELEVANT FACTS FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION

2. The Respondent/Workman joined as a conductor with DTC on 18.08.1978..

3. It is the case of the Petitioner/Management that the Respondent/Workman used to remain absent from his duty unauthorizedly without prior permission between the period 01.01.1992. and 31.12.1992. and has not given any application for leave between the same period.

4. Consequently, on the basis of Report dated 06.04.1993. submitted by Junior Pay Bill Clerk, the Petitioner/Management issued a Charge Sheet dated 15.07.1993. to the Respondent/Workman for remaining absent without permission for 140 days between the period 01.01.1992. and 31.12.1992.. It is stated in the charge sheet that the Respondent/Workman was on leave without leave application for 59 days and took unauthorized leave without medical certificate for 81 days. It is further stated in the charge sheet that such leaves show complete negligence and carelessness towards duty and amounts to misconduct under Para No. 4 (II) and 19 (H) & (M) of the Standing Order governing the conduct of the DTC employees. However, thereafter, an amended charge sheet dated 26.08.1993. was issued to the Respondent/Workman, whereby the charge against him was amended to “absent from duty” instead of “leave without pay”.

5. It is the case of the Petitioner/Management that the Respondent/Workman replied to the Chargesheet vide an undated Letter wherein he did not dispute the leaves taken by him as mentioned in the Chargesheet and thus, admitted the charges levelled against him. However, it is the case of the Respondent/Workman that he filed reply to the chargesheet dated 15.07.1993. and no reply was filed to the amended chargesheet.

6. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Manager (Traffic). It is the case of the Petitioner/Management that during the enquiry, the Respondent/Workman admitted the charges levelled against him and therefore, the Enquiry Officer did not record statement of any witnesses. Pursuant to enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, Depot Manager, who in turn issued show cause notice dated 19.11.1993. to the Respondent/Workman to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service.

7. It is the case of the Petitioner/Management that since no reply was filed by the Respondent/Workman to the show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority removed the Respondent/Workman from the service vide Letter dated 23.09.1994. on the basis of enquiry report and past record of the Respondent/Workman. It is further the claim of the Petitioner/Management that the Workman on dismissal was also paid one month wages vide money order dated 23.09.1994..

8. At that time, a dispute between the Petitioner/Management and its Workmen relating to the implementation of the IVth Pay Commission report was pending before the learned Labour Court, so the Petitioner/Management filed an Approval Application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘I.D. Act’), bearing O.P. No. 297/1994, seeking approval for removal of Respondent/Workman from service.

9. The Respondent/Workman filed his reply denying the allegations levelled against him in the Charge Sheet. Hence the learned Labour Court framed the following preliminary issue:

“Whether the Applicant held a valid enquiry and in conformity with rules of natural justice.”

10. Learned Labour Court, vide order dated 02.09.2002., decided the Preliminary issue with respect to validity of the enquiry against the Petitioner/Management. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the Respondent committed the misconduct as alleged against him?

2