$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 21^st February, 2022

Date of Decision: 15^th March, 2022

+

W.P.(C) 3207/2014 & CM APPLs.19708/2014, 12790/2015

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Bhakti Pasrija & Mr. Moksh

Pasrija, Advocates.

versus

RAJ KUMAR GUPTA

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. G.S. Charya, Advocate.

AND

+

W.P.(C) 3218/2014

RAJ KUMAR GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. G.S. Charya, Advocate.

versus

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Bhakti Pasrija & Mr. Moksh

Pasrija, Advocates.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

Brief Facts

2. The

Petitioner-Corporation

(hereinafter

“Corporation”)

has

challenged the impugned orders dated 21^st September, 2013 in O.P. No.

501/92 titled M/s Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta and

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000948

I.D. No. 400/93 titled Shri Raj Kumar Gupta v. Delhi Transport Corporation

by which the Respondent-Workman (hereinafter “Workman”) has been

awarded reinstatement, after holding that the termination of the Workman was

illegal and unjustified and the enquiry conducted by the Corporation was

vitiated. Similarly, the Workman was held to be not guilty of misconduct in

O.P. No. 501/92,and the approval application of the Corporation was

rejected.

3. Before proceeding to the impugned orders, this Court notes that the

present matter has had a long history of litigation. A brief background of the

present matter is as below.

4. The Workman was appointed as a Conductor with the Corporation on

9^th March, 1982, and was in service for a period of approximately 10 years.

In January, 1992, it is the case of the Corporation that the Workman was

absent unauthorizedly between January to May, 1992, and there were 12

adverse entries also in his service book. The case of the Workman was that

his wife was suffering from cancer and accordingly, he had put in applications

for leave which were kept pending for sanction by the Corporation. It is not

in dispute that the leave was not sanctioned. However, a charge-sheet being

charge sheet no.RN-2/AIT/CS-119/92/380, was issued by the Corporation to

the Workman on 21^st July, 1992, and a domestic enquiry was also conducted

by the Corporation. Post the enquiry, a show cause notice dated 29^th/30^th

September, 1992, was issued to the Workman as to why he should not be

removed from service due to the misconduct. On 22^nd October, 1992, he was

removed from service after an enquiry conducted by the Corporation.

5. The Corporation filed an application before the Labour Court seeking

approval of its action under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. A separate parallel

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000948

challenge was also raised by the Workman challenging his removal from

services.

6. In so far as the approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID

Act, in O.P. No.501/1992, the Labour Court dismissed the same vide order

dated 27th March, 2003, holding the termination to be in violation of the

principles of natural justice. This order was challenged in W.P.(C) 3750/2004.

7. Thereafter, order dated 25^th November, 2004, was also passed by the

Labour Court in ID No.400/93 concerning the validity of the termination of

the Workman. Vide the said order, the preliminary issue of enquiry was

decided and the enquiry was held to be defective and violative of principles

of natural justice. Subsequently, vide order dated 5^th July, 2005, the

termination of the Workman was held to be illegal and the relief of

reinstatement with 60% back wages and other consequential benefits was

granted. The operative portion of the said award dated 5^th July, 2005, reads as

under:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/0009