Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Delhi Transport Corporation - Appellant
Versus
S.P. Sagar - Respondent
LPA 401 of 2020 & CM Appls. 34541 of 2020 and 34543 of 2020
Decided On : 17-12-2021
The court upheld the Labour Court's finding of wrongful termination, limiting its authority to enhance back wages since the respondent did not appeal the initial award.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination of service - Labour Court found removal of employee illegal and unjustified - Enhanced award for back wages modified from 40% to 50% - Writ petition by employer allowed in part; restoration of Labour Court's award with original back wages implemented. (Paras 1.1, 3, 7.1)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Court's role in reviewing administrative discretion is limited; it should not reappreciate evidence, except to check for extensive rights infringement. (Paras 6.3, 6.4)
Facts of the case:
Respondent, a conductor with Delhi Transport Corporation, was removed from service following a disciplinary inquiry, leading to a legal dispute over the legality of termination and entitlement to back wages. (Paras 2.1, 3.1)
Findings of Court:
Labour Court's ruling upheld that the employee's termination was wrongful; the employer's claim against enhancing wages was rejected. (Paras 6.1-7.2)
Issues: The legality of the employee's removal from service and the appropriate rate for back wages.
Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized that the Labour Court's findings could not be overturned on appeal since they were within the jurisdiction and the enhancements made were beyond the scope of the writ petition. (Paras 6.2, 6.4)
Result: Appeal partially allowed; enhancement of back wages set aside, restoring original award from the Labour Court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background leading to dismissal (Para 2) |
| 2. labour court's ruling on illegality (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding back wages (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's observations and legal reasoning (Para 6) |
| 5. decision on appeal regarding back wages (Para 7) |
| 6. conclusion and order of payment (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.02.2020, passed by the learned single judge in W.P.(C) No.374/2010.
1.1. Via the impugned judgment, the learned single judge has modified the award dated 05.09.2008, passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 564/2006 (Old No. 249/1995), to the extent that the rate at which back wages were directed to be paid, via the said award, has been enhanced i.e., from 40 per cent to 50 per cent.
1.2. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single judge dated 19.02.2020, the appellant i.e., Delhi Transport Corporation [in short "DTC"] has preferred the instant appeal.
2. The instant appeal has been filed in the background of the following broad facts:
2.1. The respondent was appointed as a Conductor with DTC, with effect from 18.01.1983. He was served with a charge-sheet on 03.05.1993. Thereafter, an inquiry was initiated against the respondent.
2.2. The Enquiry Officer, via report dated 14.10.1993, concluded that charges framed against the respondent stood partly proved.
2.3. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority on 18.10.1993 issued a show cause notice to the respondent, calling upon him to state reasons for the irregularities committed by him, while discharging his duties, and as to why he ought not to be removed from service.
2.4. The respondent, at that stage, approached this Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i.e., W.P(C) 3396/1993. The writ petition, however, did not bear fruit and was dismissed on 19.04.1994. Resultantly, the respondent had to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 18.10.1993.
2.5. It is not in dispute that the respondent filed a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. The reply by the respondent, however, did not find favour with the appellant, and, ultimately, the respondent was removed from service w.e.f. 13.10.1994, via communication dated 12.10.1994.
2.6. This resulted in the respondent approaching the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute concerning the removal of the respondent to the Labour court, vide order dated 05.09.1995.
2.7. The reference made to the Labour Court was, broadly, as to whether the removal of the respondent from service was illegal and/or unjustified and, if that was so, what relief would he be entitled to.
3. The Labour Court, as noticed above, via award dated 05.09.2008, ruled in favour of the respondent. The Labour Court held that, the removal of respondent from service was both illegal and unjustified.
3.1. Consequently, the Labour Court directed respondent's re-instatement with continuity in service along with a direction that, the appellant would have to pay 40 percent of the back wages. It is this decision, as indicated at the very outset, which the appellant has assailed by way of the writ petition.
3.2. The writ petition was dismissed, via the impugned judgment. The learned single judge, in effect, enhanced the percentage rate at which back wages were to be paid to the respondent i.e., from 40 per cent to 50 per cent. The rationale provided by the learned single judge is: that the respondent was only negligent in discharging his duties.
4. Mr Sarfraz Khan, who appears on behalf of the appellant, says that, the learned single judge's direction to enhance the percentage at which back wages are to be paid to the respondent is completely untenable. According to him, there was no occasion for the learned single judge to enhance the quantum of the back wages, as the Labour
