Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Balraj Singh (Deceased) Through ... on 25 April, 2012
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% W.P.(C) 8060/2010
+ Date of Decision: 25th April, 2012
# DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ....Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate
Versus
$ BALRAJ SINGH (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRs. ....Respondents
Through: Ms. Sunita Harish, Advocate
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, Delhi Transport
Corporation, has challenged the Award dated 26th April, 2010 passed
by the Labour Court whereby it was held that for unauthorized
absence from duty for a period of 17 days the punishment of removal
from service awarded to the workman Balraj singh, who died during
the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, was
unjustified and accordingly after setting aside that punishment the
Labour Court passed an order for payment of family pension and
gratuity to the legal heirs of the deceased workman while back wages
were denied.
2. The deceased workman was charge-sheeted for unauthorized
absence from duty for a period of 97 days. Since the reply submitted
by him to the charge-sheet was not found to be satisfactory the
management had decided to conduct a departmental enquiry. Enquiry
officer was accordingly appointed who found the charge of
unauthorized absence established by observing that the deceased
workman himself had accepted the same at the commencement of the
enquiry. Accordingly the Disciplinary Authority awarded the
punishment of removal from service to the deceased workman.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the deceased workman raised an industrial
dispute which came to the labour Court for adjudication. The labour
Court, as noticed above, passed the impugned Award directing the
management to pay to the legal heirs of the deceased workman his
family pension and gratuity while denying him the relief of back
wages after coming to the conclusion the punishment of removal from
service was unjustified.
4. The management then felt even aggrieved with the grant of
aforesaid relief of payment of gratuity and family pension only to the
legal heirs of the deceased workman by the Labour Court and
therefore, the present writ petition was filed.
5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-
management that since in the impugned Award the labour Court itself
had also come to the conclusion that this was a case of unauthorized
absence from duty for 17 days no relief whatsoever could have been
given to the legal heirs of the deceased workman and further that the
findings of the labour Court that the removal from service of the
deceased workman was unjustified is also not sustainable considering
the fact that on earlier occasions also the deceased workman had been
found absent from duty and not only that he had been penalized also
for remaining absent unauthorizedly from duty. It has also been
contended that even if the labour Court was of the view that
punishment of removal from service was highly disproportionate to
the charge of misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty for 17
days then either the management should have been directed to take a
fresh decision on the quantum of punishment or the labour Court itself
should have awarded a lesser punishment but instead of doing that the
deceased workman was rewarded by directing the petitioner-
management to pay his legal heirs the benefit of gratuity and family
pension. While making this submission learned counsel for the
petitioner-management, however, did not dispute that in case the
deceased workman had been alive and the labour Court had come to
the conclusion that he had been wrongly removed from service then of
course his heirs would be entitled to get family pension after his death
but since in the present case he has been found guilty of misconduct
none of these benefits are available to his legal heirs.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the legal heirs of the
deceased workman submitted that this was not a fit case of
interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction in the
decision of the learned Labour Court to the effect that the punishment
of removal from service awarded to the deceased workman was
unjustified since labour Court did have the jurisdiction and discretion
under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to give a
finding that the punishment awarded to the deceased workman was
disproportionate to the charge of misconduct proved against him and
in the present case the labour Court cannot be said to have exercised
that jurisdiction and discretion arbitrarily justifying intereference by
this Court.
7. A perusal of the impugned Award shows that the learned labour
Court had come to the conclusion that the punishment of removal
from service awarded to the deceased workman was not justified for
the reason that as per the management's own case the deceased
workman had submitted leave applications for a period of 80 days out
of a total period of alleged unauthorized absence of 97 days. It is also
been noticed that even though leave applications had been submitted
by the deceased workman on the ground of his sickness and he had
submitted medical certificates as well as fitness certificates but the
management had rejected the same on the ground that there was no
leave available to his credit. The labour Court has also accordingly
come to the conclusion that it was a case of unauthorized absence
from duty for a period of 17 days only as the deceased workman had
not submitted any leave applications for that period. This position is
not being disputed from either side.
8. I am of the view that the labour Court's decision cannot be said
to be perverse justifying any interference by this Court and it cannot
be said to have exercised it discretion available to it under Section 11-
A of Industrial Disputes Act arbitrarily by coming to the conclusion
that punishment of removal from service for absent from duty for a
period of 17 days only was not justified.
9. As far as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner-management that there should have been some penalty
imposed on the deceased workman by the labour Court after coming
to the conclusion that he had remained absent from duty
unauthorizedly for a period of 17 days and he could not have been let
off without any penalty. However, I do not find any merit in this
submission also for the reason that the deceased workman has been
denied the back wages by the labour Court after coming to the
conclusion that he had remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for a
period of 17 days and denial of back wages can be considered to be a
sufficient punishment and it cannot be said to be a case of no
punishment having been given to the deceased workman for the
misconduct of 17 days absence from duty.
10. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
P.K. BHASIN, J
APRIL 25, 2012/pg
