Discretion under Section 11-A must be exercised judiciously; compassion cannot be the basis for modifying penalties in labor disputes involving misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.

1. The challenge in the present petition is to an Award dated 20.07.2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court- XVII, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in the matter titled as M/s. Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sh. Mahender Singh [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”].

2. The Coordinate Bench of this Court had by an order dated 04.11.2016 passed directions staying the enforcement of the Impugned Award. Thereafter on 15.10.2019, the Petitioner/DTC was directed to produce the relevant medical record of the Respondent/Workman including finding of the Medical Board. The records have since been filed by the Petitioner/DTC on 14.08.2024, during arguments before this Court.

3. Briefly the facts in the present case are that the Respondent/Workman had joined the services of the Petitioner/DTC in the year 1983 as a Retainer Crew Driver and his services were regularized in the year 1985, making him a permanent employee of the Petitioner/DTC.

4. The services of the Respondent/Workman were terminated by the Petitioner/DTC on 16.10.2007 pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. It is the case of the Petitioner/DTC that the Respondent/Workman was absent from his duty from 01.01.2007 to 31.05.2007. An enquiry was held pursuant to which the Respondent/Workman was charge-sheeted on 12.06.2007 for the period of his unauthorized absence.

4.1 The enquiry culminated into an enquiry report dated 14.08.2007, which found the charges against the Respondent/Workman to be correct. This led to the issue of a show cause notice dated 13.09.2007 to the Respondent/Workman and which was followed by the order of termination dated 16.10.2007 [hereinafter referred to as “Termination Order”]. The order of termination found the Respondent’s responses not to be satisfactory and imposed a penalty of removal with immediate effect from the services of the Petitioner/DTC.

5. The order of removal and the penalty imposed were challenged by the Respondent/Workman before the learned Labour Court. In its statement of claim, it was contended by the Respondent/Workman that the Respondent/Workman was not given the list of witnesses and the documents relied on by the Petitioner/DTC before the Enquiry Officer. The Respondent/Workman also alleged that the principles of natural justice were violated as he was not given an opportunity of being heard by the Petitioner/DTC and that the enquiry was not conducted according to the Rules of the Petitioner/DTC.

5.1 It was further contended that the Respondent/Workman was suffering from an illness for a long period and had also submitted leave applications along with his medical certificate for the period of leave, despite which his services were terminated.

6. The Petitioner/DTC filed its written statement before the learned Labour Court wherein it denied that the Respondent/Workman was a hard-working and sincere workman. The Petitioner/DTC sought to rely on the record of the Respondent/Workman which showed that due to unauthorized absence from duty, the Respondent/Workman had been warned on more than one occasion and that