Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 13704
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
DILBAGH SINGH – Appellant
Versus
DTC – Respondent
LPA 662/2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Arun Bhardwaj, Pranava Rastogi, Ashu Tiwari
For the Respondents: Avnish Ahlawat, Uday Singh Ahlawat, Tania Ahlawat, Nitish Kumar Singh, Nitesh Kumar Singh, Aliza Alam, Mohnish Sehrawat
Unauthorized absence treated as 'leave without pay' does not imply the leave was sanctioned or regularized, and does not absolve an employee from disciplinary action for habitual absence if the mandatory procedures for leave application and medical certification are not followed.
Headnote:The case involves a challenge to an order setting aside a Labour Court award that had directed the reinstatement of an employee removed from service for remaining on leave without pay for 161 days. The employee contended that the absence was due to personal and spouse's illness and that the departmental enquiry was conducted in haste, concluding on a single day without allowing the production of medical certificates. The court analyzed the Standing Orders, specifically the requirements for obtaining permission for leave and the submission of medical certificates for prolonged illness. The primary issues were whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated by being conducted in a single day and whether the term 'leave without pay' in the charge sheet implied that the leave was sanctioned. The court reasoned that the employee was given every opportunity to appoint a defence assistant, cross-examine witnesses, and lead evidence, all of which he declined. The court further held that treating unauthorized absence as 'leave without pay' does not regularize the absence or absolve the employee from disciplinary action for habitual absence. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the termination and subsequent legal challenges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. contention regarding the validity of the enquiry and the nature of leave. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. distinction between 'leave without pay' and 'sanctioned leave'. (Para 14) |
| 4. evaluation of the opportunity provided to the employee during the enquiry. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. rejection of the labour court's findings based on misplaced sympathy. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. This intra Court appeal lays a challenge to the order dated 03.05.2013 (impugned order) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1852/2011 filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation (in short ‘Corporation’) whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition.
2. The Corporation challenged the award dated 08.04.2010 passed in ID No.296/2008/1996 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (in short ‘Labour Court’) whereby the industrial dispute with regard to the termination of Dilbagh Singh has been determined in favour of the deceased employee with a direction that he should be reinstated.
3. Suffice to state that the learned Single Judge has set aside the award dated 08.04.2010 by the impugned order.
4. During the appeal proceedings, employee –Dilbagh Singh had expired and in terms of order dated 31.08.2017, his legal hears were brought on record in his place.
5. The facts to be noted for the purpose of determination of this appeal are that the deceased employee was appointed as a driver in the Corporation in the year 1982. While working so, on 20.08.1987, he was issued a charge sheet for remaining on leave without pay which had the effect of being absent from duty between 01.01.1987 to 31.07.1987 which is for a period of 161 days. The deceased employee denied the charges; resulting in the conduct of departmental proceedings by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority, who in turn issued a show cause notice dated 10.02.1988. Pursuant thereto, the deceased employee was removed from service.
6. Being aggrieved, the deceased employee raised an Industrial Dispute No.296/2008/1996 challenging his removal from service. It was the case of the deceased employee before the Labour Court that he was constrained to avail leave on the ground of his and his wife’s illness. He sent the applications seeking leave to the depot official, which was granted to him without pay.
7. The case of the Corporation before the Labour Court was that no intimation of deceased employee seeking leave was received by the Corporation and the deceased employee was a habitual absentee.
8. The Labour Court decided the issue with regard to the validity and fairness of the enquiry proceedings against the corporation vide order dated 04.06.2009 by holding that the proceedings were conducted in haste. It held if the enquiry had not been concluded on the same day, the deceased employee could have taken steps to produce medical certificates which he alleged to have submitted in the control room.
9. In so far as the charge is concerned, the Labour Court held that the deceased employee was constrained to go on leave due to his illness as well as the illness of his wife and hence it could not be said that he was intentionally absent. The Labour Court ordered his reinstatement.
10. The case of the Corporation before the learned Single Judge was that the award of the Labour Court is without appreciating the material on record. It is stated that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the respondent had not submitted any leave application. The case of the Corporation was also by producing the Master Attendance Register as Ex.MW2/1. Wherein at certain places ‘NA’ was written, which means ‘no application’. It was the case of the Corporation that the factum of the enquiry being concluded within a
