Delhi High Court
Shri Bharat Bhushan vs M/S. Delhi Transport Corporation on 16 December, 2010
Author: Manmohan
44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 892/2010
SHRI BHARAT BHUSHAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ram Sewak, Advocate.
versus
M/S. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
with Ms. Latika Chaudhary,
Advocate.
% Date of Decision : 16th December, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J
1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment and order dated 25th October, 2010 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C) 1771/2008 whereby the appellant-petitioner's
writ petition has been dismissed.
2. Mr. Ram Sewak, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
submitted that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge had
erred in reaching the conclusion that the appellant-petitioner was a
habitual absentee.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the
opinion that the appellant-petitioner was fully aware of his past record
and if he wanted a copy of the same, he could have applied for the
same.
4. In fact, we find that the Labour Court has noticed that after
issuance of the show cause notice dated 23rd March, 1993, the
appellant-petitioner had moved an application dated 06th April, 1993
before the Deputy Manager, asking for supply of a number of
documents, but he nowhere asked for copies of his past record.
Consequently, in our opinion, the appellant-petitioner has not made out
any case of prejudice caused to him in the absence of non-supply of
past record.
5. In the present case, we also find that the appellant-petitioner was
habitually negligent in his duties and exhibited lack of interest in his
work. The Supreme Court in DTC vs. Sardar Singh, 2004 SCC (L&S)
946 has held that habitual absence is a factor which establishes lack of
interest in work and telltale features can be noticed and pressed into
service to arrive at conclusions in the departmental proceedings.
6. In the present case, the Labour Court in its award has noted the
following facts:-
"His past record has as many as 12 adverse entries out
of which 7 entries are in respect of absence from duty
without information. He absented from duty w.e.f.
11.10.87 to 23.10.87 without any information for which
he was warned. He was absent from duties w.e.f. 9.2.88
to 3.4.88 without information for which he was
reprimanded. He again absented from duty without
information from 26.2.89 to 5.4.89 for which he was
censured. He availed 150 days leave without pay during
the period from 1.1.89 to 31.8.89 for which punishment
of stoppage of next due increment without cumulative
effect was imposed upon him. He also absented from
duties from 17.7.88 to 10.8.88 for which punishment of
stoppage of next due two increments was imposed. He
again absented from duty from 10.10.90 to 29.10.90 for
which he was warned. He availed excess leave without
pay for the year 88, 89, 90 for which punishment of
stoppage of next due one increment with cumulative
effect was imposed. As there were a number of adverse
entries, it cannot be said that it was not in the
knowledge of the workman and he was prejudiced due to
non supply of past record."
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that
the present appeal is devoid of merit. Consequently, the same is
dismissed but with no order as to costs.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
DECEMBER 16, 2010
js
