BRIJ PAL SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner workman by this writ petition impugns the award dated 22nd July, 1996 of the Labour Court holding the departmental/domestic inquiry conducted prior to the termination of services of the petitioner workman by the respondent no.2 DTC to be valid and legal and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and further finding the punishment of dismissal from service meted out to the petitioner workman to be not disproportionate to the misconduct with which he was charged and found guilty and accordingly holding the petitioner workman to be not entitled to any relief.

(2.) The petitioner workman was employed as a Driver with the respondent no.2 DTC since the year 1973. He was suspended on 7th February, 1984 and chargesheeted on 23rd February, 1984 for refusal to outshed the bus which he was to drive and/or directed to drive and with disorderly behavior and use of abusive language in the premises of the respondent no.2 DTC while on duty. The Inquiry Officer found the petitioner workman to be guilty and the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent no.2 DTC accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and inter alia in view of the past conduct of the petitioner workman, of 20 adverse entries during the service record of 12 years of public complaints, accidents, misbehavior, manhandling and further in view of the petitioner workman on two earlier occasions, having been censured, on yet other two occasions having been reprimanded and on yet an other occasion in the past having been punished with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, ordered the dismissal of the petitioner workman from service. The petitioner workman raised an industrial dispute and on which, reference was made to the Labour Court. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue of validity of the domestic inquiry preceding the punishment and vide award impugned in this petition found no infirmity in the inquiry and held the petitioner workman to be not entitled to any relief.

(3.) The respondent no.2 DTC has in its counter affidavit to the writ petition also mentioned about the past complaints and punishments meted out to the petitioner workman. The petitioner workman in his rejoinder to the counter affidavit has generally denied the paragraph of the counter affidavit containing the said averments and further pleaded that he was never asked to explain or heard before the said punishments were meted out to him and the same being made behind his back are of no consequence. The petitioner workman however did not raise any dispute regarding the said earlier adverse entries in his record and/or the punishments earlier meted out to him. The only conclusion is that the past conduct of the petitioner workman, notice whereof has been taken by the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent no.2 DTC while meeting out the punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner workman, is undisputed. The counsel for the petitioner workman during the hearing also did not challenge the same.