Harbhajan vs Delhi Transport Corporation
2009 Latest Caselaw 2516 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      W.P.(C) No. 8848/2009

%                      Date of Decision: 07 July, 2009


# Harbhajan
                                                            ..... Petitioner
!           Through: Ms. Rashmi B. Singh, Advocate.

                                 Versus

$ Delhi Transport Corporation.
                                                    .....Respondent

^           Through:    Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate.

CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The workman (petitioner herein) has filed this writ petition seeking

to challenge the award dated 16.07.2007 passed by Mr. Harish Dudani,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. XVII, Delhi rejecting his claim for

reinstatement or back wages.

2 This case was taken up for admission hearing on 11.05.2009 and on

that day, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner took an

adjournment for placing the pleadings filed before the Labour Court on

record and despite opportunity granted to the petitioner, pleadings have

not been placed on record till date. Ms. Rashmi B. Singh appearing on

behalf of the petitioner today again requests for an adjournment for filing

of documents for which adjournment prayed even on 11.05.2009. This

request is declined.

 3     Heard.

4     The petitioner was appointed as a conductor in the Delhi Transport

Corporation (respondent herein) in August, 1978. He was served with a

charge-sheet dated 01.11.1995 for holding an inquiry against him for his

unauthorized absence for 86 days during the period from January to

August, 1995. The petitioner was found guilty in the domestic inquiry

held against him. The petitioner was a habitual absenter prior to inquiry

for his unauthorized absence for 86 days was held against him in terms

of charge-sheet dated 01.11.1995. There are 20 red entries in the service

record of the petitioner and even on earlier occasions penalty of

reduction of his pay was imposed against him on two occasions. The

disciplinary authority after considering the report of the inquiry officer

and also taking into account the past conduct of the petitioner

terminated him from service vide order dated 30.09.1996.

5 The petitioner aggrieved by his termination by the respondent

raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate

Government to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court vide

its award, impugned in the present writ petition, held that the

termination of the petitioner was legal and justified. The court below vide

its order dated 03.04.2007 decided the inquiry issue also against the

petitioner and it was held that principal of natural justice were duly

adhered to during domestic inquiry into the charges held against the

petitioner.

6 Ms. R.B. Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner has argued that the impugned award is liable to be struck

down because the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner was vague;

the breakup of the period of absence during January to August, 1995 was

not made available to the petitioner and also on account of the fact that

there was no presenting officer before the inquiry officer. All these

arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner are wholly untenable as

they are without merit. Charge-sheet dated 01.11.1995 (at page 28 of

the paper book) clearly spells out the charge against the petitioner that

he was unauthorizedly absent for 86 days during the period from January,

1995 to August, 1995. The petitioner was also put on notice by charge-

sheet dated 01.11.1995 that his past conduct will also be taken into

account while considering his unauthorized absence for 86 days. As far as

non-supply of the break up of period of absence is concerned, it may be

noted that the respondent vide its communication dated 17.11.1995

(Annexure-E at page 31 of the paper book) communicated to the

petitioner that the period of his unauthorized absence is already available

in the pay slip issued to him every month during the period he remained

unauthorizedly absent. The question of non-supply of documents appears

to be misconceived.

7 The petitioner was given adequate opportunity to prove his defence

against the charge of unauthorized absence for 86 days leveled against

him in charge memo dated 01.11.1995. The petitioner does not dispute

his absence for 86 days during the period from January to August, 1995

in the present writ petition. The contention of learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not have been

terminated from service because his alleged absence from service was

not continuous. This argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner in

fact goes against the petitioner and it proves that the petitioner was a

habitual absenter, though his unauthorized absence for 86 days during

the period from January to August, 1995 may not be continuous. The

petitioner has not rebutted in the ground of challenge contained in the

writ petition that he did not had 20 red entries in his service record or

about the penalty of reduction of pay imposed upon him on two earlier

occasions prior to passing of the termination order dated 30.09.1996.

This implies an admission by the petitioner about his past conduct.

8 The petitioner was a conductor in Delhi Transport Corporation,

which is a public utility department. Unauthorized absence of the

petitioner and that too a habitual absence caused a disruption in the

running of buses and inconvenience to the commuters availing the

facilities of DTC buses. The misconduct proved against the petitioner and

penalty of termination imposed upon him is squarely covered by a

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DTC Vs. Sardar Singh 2004

(6) Scale 613.

9 In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition

which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

July 07, 2009                                    S.N.AGGARWAL
a                                                   [JUDGE]