The court affirmed the Labour Court's discretion to modify punishment for misconduct based on mitigating circumstances, granting partial back wages despite serious transgressions.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. The appeal impugns the judgment dated 28th July, 2020, in W.P.(C) No.6204/2017 preferred by the appellant impugning the Award dated 6th September, 2016 of the Labour Court in an industrial dispute referred for adjudication.

2. We have heard the counsel for the appellant Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as well as the counsel for the respondent/workman.

3. The respondent/workman was employed as a driver with the appellant DTC. On 10th January, 2006, he was on duty on route no. 33 from Bhajanpura to Noida, with Sat Pal Singh as the conductor on the said bus. The said bus met with an accident near the subway at Gokalpuri, Delhi; no injury however was caused to any passenger and no damage done to the bus. The Police Control Room van which was immediately called to the site, took the driving license and badge of the respondent/workman and handed over the same to the conductor Sat Pal Singh for deposit with the appellant DTC, 30th June, 2006, terminating the respondent/workman appellant DTC. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent/workman, resulting in the Disciplinary Authority of the on from service.

4. On the respondent/workman raising an industrial dispute, the following reference was made to the Labour Court:

"Whether services of Sh. Dheer Singh S/o Sh. Dharam Singh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; if so, to what relief is he entitled?"

5. The Labour Court, vide order dated 28th May, 2016 held that the enquiry conducted by the appellant DTC was fair, proper and valid. Vide Award dated 6th September, 2016, the Labour Court found/held that the accident was caused owing to the respondent/workman, at the time of accident, having been drunk and having indulged in drunken driving, causing him to ram the bus into the subway. Notwithstanding the said finding, the Labour Court, reasoning that (i) the respondent/workman had joined the Management as driver in the year 1980 and had prior to termination of his services on 30th June, 2006 had served for 26 long years; (ii) the appellant DTC, while terminating his services, did not take into account the length of service of the respondent/workman; (iii) the respondent/workman had two sons and two daughters and his younger son as well as his wife were suffering from AIDS; (iv) the wife of the respondent/workman was also suffering from slip disk; and, (v) these facts also were not taken into account while deciding whether the services of the respondent/workman be terminated or not, held the removal of the respondent/workman from service to be unjustified. The Labour Court further reasoned that though the respondent/workman had started committing misconduct since 1983 and was having as many as 31 adverse entries against him, but keeping in view the health of his family, the misconduct of drunken driving ought not to have resulted in dismissal. The Labour Court thus held that it was a fit case for the respondent/workman to be not entitled to continue in service as a driver, beyond 55 years of age and which the respondent/workman had already reached. The Labour Court accordingly modified the punishment meted out by the Disciplinary Authority of the appellant DTC to the respondent/workman, of removal from service, to that of reinstatement with 50% back wages, from the date of termination till the respondent/workman achieved the age of 55 years, with all consequential benefits.

6. The Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, observing that the Labour Court, considering the mitigating circumstances aforesaid had awarded 50% of