A Labour Court's discretion to modify penalties under Section 11-A of the ID Act requires clear findings of disproportionate punishment or mitigating circumstances; mere length of service does not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

SHAIL JAIN, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, Delhi Transport Corporation, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the Award dated 8^th July, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award”) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, POLC-XVII, Karkardooma Court, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “ Labour Court”) in LIR No. 6809/16, arising out of an industrial dispute between the petitioner - Management/Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “DTC”) and the respondent–workman, Sh. Ram Dhari Singh.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The brief factual matrix as emerging from the record shows that the Respondent-workman, Sh. Ram Dhari Singh, was appointed as a Conductor on permanent post with the DTC in the year 1985 and continued in service until his termination on 29^th August, 2003.

3. A Charge-Sheet dated 23^rd July, 2001 was issued to the Respondent for being unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f. 7^th April, 2001 to 23^rd July, 2001. Prior thereto, letters dated 19^th April, 2001, 4^th May, 2001 and 24^th May, 2001 were dispatched directing him either to report for duty or, in case of illness, to appear before the DTC Medical Board at I.P. Depot for examination. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent neither reported for duty nor appeared before the Medical Board. Consequently, vide Order dated 31^st December, 2001, a domestic enquiry was instituted. The enquiry was conducted on 4^th February, 2002.

4 As per the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer read over and explained the contents of the Charge-Sheet to the Respondent. The Respondent acknowledged receipt of the Charge-Sheet and the report forming the basis thereof. He declined assistance of a co-worker or labour welfare inspector and stated that he would defend himself. The Respondent admitted the charge of unauthorized absence during the course of the domestic enquiry. It is further recorded in the enquiry proceedings that, in his defence, he stated that he could not report for duty on account of illness. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings dated 7^th February, 2002 holding the charge proved.

5 After receipt of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 4^th July, 2003 proposing the penalty of removal from service. The Respondent submitted his reply dated 13^th August, 2003. Upon consideration of the enquiry record, the reply to the Show-Cause Notice, and the past service record, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service vide order dated 29^th August, 2003.

6. The Petitioner has placed reliance upon the past service record of the Respondent, which reflects multiple instances of such unauthorized absence. It is stated that the Respondent had been subjected to several punishments in the past, including censure, stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, and reduction in time scale, on account of similar misconduct. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the Respondent raised an industrial dispute. Vide Order No. F.24(951)/06/Lab./6075–79, dated 8^th August, 2007, issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi, the following question was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court:

“Whether the punishment of removal from service imposed upon Sh. Ram Dhari Singh S/o Sh. Mehanti Singh by the management vide order dated 29.08.2003 is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so,to what sum of money as monetary relief along with other consequential benefits in terms of existing Laws/Govt. notifications and what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?”

7. The Labour Court framed two issues for consideration:First, whether the domestic enquiry was fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice; andSecond, whether the punishment of removal was legal and justified. By Order dated 19^th May, 2016, the