Disciplinary actions by employers must comply with fair enquiry standards; failure to allow cross-examination does not nullify properly conducted proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition, is assailing the award dated 04.09.2002 passed by the Presiding officer, Labour Court VII, Delhi in ID No. 183/1996 ("impugned Award"). Vide the impugned Award, learned Labour Court was pleased to uphold the termination of services of the Petitioner.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:

2. The Petitioner was appointed as a driver with the Delhi Transport Corporation (Respondent No. 3) on 25.03.1976. His services were regularized w.e.f. 23.05.1977. The Petitioner was allegedly absent from duty without the permission of the competent authority from 01.01.1993 to 30.09.1993. Hence a Charge Sheet dated 25.10.1993 was issued to the Petitioner alleging unauthorized absence. The said Chargesheet finally culminated into penalty of `stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect'. The Petitioner never challenged the said punishment and hence the said punishment attained finality.

3. The Petitioner again absented himself from 15.02.1994 without prior permission of the competent authority. The Petitioner was directed for medical checkup vide letters dated 01.03.1994 and 27.04.1994. However, the Petitioner failed to respond to the said letters. Hence second Chargesheet dated 30.05.1994 was issued against the Petitioner. Petitioner failed to respond to the said Chargesheet, and hence enquiry proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner. During the enquiry proceedings the Petitioner admitted his guilt. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 16.02.1995, inflicted a penalty of `removal from service' on the Petitioner under Para 15(2)(vi) of DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations,1952. Appeal filed against the said order dated 16.02.1995 was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.05.1995 as time barred.

4. An industrial dispute was raised by the Petitioner before the conciliation officer. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the following reference was made by the Central Government to the Labour Court:

"Whether the removal of Sh. Ram Phool from service by the Management is illegal and / or unjustified and if so, what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

5. The Petitioner filed statement of Claim before the learned Labour Court alleging that the Respondent illegally terminated his services even though he had sought leave on medical ground. The Petitioner further alleges that the Respondent conducted the enquiry without complying with the principles of natural justice. The Respondent filed the written statement justifying the penalty inflicted on the Petitioner. The Respondent stated that they have terminated the service of the Petitioner after holding a fair and proper enquiry against him. The Petitioner participated in the enquiry and admitted his guilt during the enquiry proceedings.

6. The learned Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the Management has not conducted a fair and proper enquiry in accordance with principles of Natural Justice.

2. As per terms of reference."

7. The learned Labour Court treated Issue No.1 as Preliminary Issue and asked the parties to lead their respective evidence. The Petitioner examined himself as WW-1. The Respondent filed the Affidavit of the enquiry officer, Mrs. Sunita Chauhan as MW-1 and presented herself for cross-examinat