DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RISHI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner DTC in this writ petition impugns the order dated 3rd October, 2002 of the Industrial Tribunal rejecting the application of the petitioner DTC under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking approval of its order dated 6th July, 1992 of termination of services of the respondent workman employed as a driver with the petitioner DTC. The respondent workman died on 20th February, 2010 during the pendency of this petition and is now represented by his legal representatives.

(2.) The petitioner DTC has charged the respondent workman with unauthorized absenteeism for 148 days between 1st January, 1991 and 31st January, 1992. Under Clause 4(ii) of the Standing Orders of the petitioner DTC habitual absence without permission or sanction of leave and continuous absence without such leave for more than 10 days renders the employee liable to be treated as an absconder, resulting in termination of his services. Similarly, Clause 19(h) thereof constitutes habitual negligence of duties and lack of interest in work as a misconduct. The inquiry conducted by the petitioner DTC found the respondent workman guilty of habitual absence without permission, negligence in performance of duty and lack of interest in work and the disciplinary authority of the petitioner DTC vide order dated 6th July, 1992 levied the punishment of removal of service on the respondent. However, since at that time an industrial dispute between the petitioner DTC and its employees in general relating to certain pensionary benefits was pending, the approval application under Section 33(2)(b) was necessitated and came to be filed.

(3.) It transpires that the respondent workman also raised a dispute of his termination aforesaid. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the I.D. Act.