Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sh. Mool Chand on 23 May, 2019
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 23rd May, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 1569/2018
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Aldanish Rein, Mr.Maheravish
Rein, Mr.Shamshravish Rein,
Advocates
versus
SH. MOOL CHAND ..... Respondent
Through Sh. Somesh Chandra Jha, Mr.Anand
Darshan, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
CM APPL.43159/2018
1. The respondent is seeking wages under Section 17B of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The respondent has deposed on affidavit filed along with the
application that he has been unemployed since the date of termination. The
application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to pay wages to the
respondent from the date of the application i.e. 11th October, 2018 upto date.
W.P.(C) 1569/2018
2. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court whereby
Labour Court has awarded reinstatement with 100% backwages to the
respondent.
3. The respondent was working as a Conductor with the petitioner. On
06th July, 2014, the respondent was on duty on Bus No.DL-1PC-7096 which
was checked by checking staff at Old Delhi Railway Station at 6:23 A.M.
when the respondent was found with 14 punched tickets of Rs.15/- each.
According to the petitioner, the respondent had retained the sold tickets with
the intention to re-sell them. The petitioner chargesheeted the respondent
and conducted an enquiry which held the petitioner guilty. The petitioner
terminated the services of the respondent after enquiry whereupon the
respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour
Court.
4. The Labour Court held that the respondent at best merely prepared for
selling the pre-sold tickets but neither attempted nor sold the said tickets. In
that view of the matter, respondent had not committed any misconduct. That
apart, the Labour Court observed that the punishment for removal of service
was disproportionate to the action of the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
committed the misconduct and has been rightly terminated from service. It
is further submitted that the award of 100% back wages is not warranted in
the facts of the present case. Reliance is placed on Parma Nand v. State of
Haryana, (1989) 2 SCC 177 and Divisional Controller, KSRTC
(NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane, (2005) 3 SCC 254.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent urged at the time of the hearing
that the respondent has not committed any misconduct and therefore, the
reinstatement with 100% backwages is not justified.
7. This Court is of the view that the punishment of dismissal from
service is totally disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of the
respondent. In that view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the finding of
the Labour Court with respect to the setting aside of the dismissal. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the setting aside of the
punishment of dismissal for service is upheld. However, the award of 100%
backwages is not justified. The 100% backwages awarded by the Labour
Court is reduced to 50% backwages. The Labour Court imposed the
punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect
which is upheld. The petitioner shall not be liable to pay any interest
considering that this petition was pending in this Court. The interest awarded
by the Labour Court is set aside.
8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application is
disposed of.
9. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clarified that
this judgment shall not be treated as precedent.
10. The petitioner is directed to implement this judgment within six weeks
from today.
11. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties under
the signature of the Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
MAY 23, 2019
dk
