DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SARDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the controversies in these appeals are based on identical premises, they are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

(2.) Background facts leading to these appeals are as follows: The respondent in each case was working as a conductor in the appellant-Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the employer). Departmental proceedings were initiated against each one of them on the ground of misconduct due to unauthorized long absence from duty; negligence of duties and lack of interest in the employers work. The terms and conditions of appointment and service were governed by the applicable service regulations i.e. Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (in short the Regulations). According to the employer the unauthorized absence was indicative of negligence and lack of interest in employers work amounted to misconduct. Reference was made to Paras 4(ii) and 19(h) of the Standing Orders issued under Para 15(1) of the Regulations. After finding the concerned employees guilty and being of the view that removal from service was the proper punishment, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of dismissal / removal from service. Since an industrial dispute was already pending approval was sought for in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). According to Tribunal, proper enquiry was not held. It, however, granted opportunity to the employer to lead further evidence to justify its action. Employer led further evidence. On consideration of materials brought on record, Tribunal came to hold that availing leave without pay did not amount to misconduct. It noted that since employer had treated absence from duty as leave without pay, it indicated sanction of leave and, therefore, also there was no misconduct. According to the employer long absence without sanctioned leave clearly disclosed lack of interest in service and the concerned employee was guilty of misconduct. The approval sought for was refused by the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not accord approval primarily on the ground that in most cases the leave was treated as leave without pay and that being the position it cannot be said that the absence was unauthorized.

(3.) The employer approached the Delhi High Court and learned single Judge of the Court held that the disapproval by the Tribunal was not in order. The concerned, employees preferred Letters Patent Appeals before the Delhi High Court. A Division Bench of the Court by the impugned judgment disposed of several L.P.As. being of the view that the Tribunals conclusions were in order and the learned single Judge was not correct in his conclusions.