Delhi High Court
Shanti Kaur vs Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr on 12 July, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 12th July, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 827/2012 & CM APPLN. 1854/2012
SHANTI KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sunita Arora, Advocate.
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. U.N. Tiwary, Advocate for DTC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 05 th October, 2011
whereby the Labour Court dismissed the petitioner's claim.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee by the respondent
No.1 on 16th January, 1981 after the death of her husband. The petitioner
stopped coming to the office from 11th December, 1994 whereupon the
respondent No.1 issued a charge sheet to the petitioner on the ground of
illegal absence from the duty with effect from 11 th December, 1994. The
inquiry officer held the charge proved vide report dated 31st May, 1995. The
respondent No.2 accepted the report and removed the petitioner from service
on 27th July, 1995.
3. On 04th July, 2002 i.e. after seven years of removal from service, the
petitioner raised an industrial dispute, in which reference was made on 28 th
July, 2003.
4. The Labour Court vide award dated 05th October, 2011 rejected the
petitioner's claim on the following grounds:
i. Petitioner's claim that she had informed the respondents about
her illness was vague since material particulars like date or month
were not mentioned.
ii. The respondents had sent a letter to the petitioner asking her to
join duty (Ex.WW1/4) which was not replied by her.
iii. The respondents asked the petitioner to report before the
Medical Board but no reply was received from the petitioner.
iv. No document of illness was brought on record for the leave
period. The Medical Certificate produced by the petitioner was of a
later date.
v. The past record of the petitioner is also bad.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged at the time of hearing that the
petitioner was diagnosed with psychological disturbance in December, 1994
whereupon she took leave with effect from 11th December, 1994. However,
her condition did not improve and, therefore, she could not attend her duties.
Without prejudice, it is submitted that the punishment of removal imposed
by the respondents is harsh, excessive and disproportionate to the charge.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents urged at the time of hearing that
the respondents wrote to the petitioner on 17th January, 1995 to report before
the Medical Board but the petitioner chose not to appear before the board.
On 31st May, 1995, the respondents again directed the petitioner to appear
before the Medical Board whereupon she appeared on 05th June, 1995 and
the Medical Board told the petitioner to produce the medical record but she
failed to produce the same despite reminder letter dated 15th June, 1995. The
respondents removed the petitioner after giving repeated opportunities to
produce the medical record before the Medical Board. It is submitted that the
burden to prove that the absence for any justifiable reason was on the
petitioner which she failed to discharge. Reliance is placed on DTC v.
Sardar Singh, (2004) 7 SCC 574. It is further submitted that the industrial
dispute was raised after unexplained long delay of seven years.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner expired on 03rd March, 2013.
8. This Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the well reasoned
findings of the Labour Court. The petitioner did not produce his medical
record before the Medical Board despite repeated opportunities and as such
could not prove that there was any justification for unauthorized absence.
That apart there is an unexplained delay of seven years in raising the
industrial dispute.
9. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed.
Pending application is disposed of.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
JULY 12, 2019
ds
