Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 780
2025:DHC:23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.
Delhi Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Mahender Singh – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 10360 of 2016
Decided On : 07-01-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Aditi Gupta
For the Respondents : S.C. Sharma, Ashish Verma
Discretion under Section 11-A must be exercised judiciously; compassion cannot be the basis for modifying penalties in labor disputes involving misconduct.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11-A - Termination of employee - Challenge to Award passed by Labour Court - Petitioner terminated workman for unauthorized absence; Labour Court modified penalty to compulsory retirement on grounds of compassion and length of service - Supreme Court jurisprudence emphasizes need for discretion to be judiciously exercised without external factors like compassion influencing decisions - Court held that frequent unauthorized absence amounted to misconduct; therefore, no illegality in original termination - Award of Labour Court set aside with reinstatement of termination decision. (Paras 14 and 24)
(B) Natural Justice - Enquiry proceedings - Workman was provided opportunity to defend himself; principles of natural justice not violated as per Labour Court findings. (Paras 20 and 21)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to labour court award (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts of respondent's employment and termination (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. petitioner’s defense and allegations against respondent (Para 6) |
| 4. detail of labour court's award (Para 7) |
| 5. petitioner’s contention against modified penalty by labour court (Para 8) |
| 6. respondent's defense against dismissal (Para 9) |
| 7. findings on inquiry and principles of natural justice (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 8. findings on the legality and justification of removal (Para 13 , 14) |
| 9. judicial principles regarding modifying punishment (Para 15 , 16) |
| 10. discussion on case laws regarding absence and punishment (Para 17 , 18) |
| 11. enquiry findings and respondent’s merit (Para 19 , 20) |
| 12. willfulness of absence and its implications (Para 21 , 23) |
| 13. final determination and judgment outcome (Para 24) |
| 14. final ruling on the petition (Para 25) |
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
