RAKESH SINGH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the award dated 29.3.2007 passed in I.D. No. 437/2005 whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner workman.

(2.) Brief facts as set out by the petitioner and relevant for deciding the present case are that the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent Corporation since 1.1.1999 on compassionate basis and that he fell ill on 27.5.2001 and after that reported for duty only on 16.1.2002 when he was not allowed to join back on his duties by the respondent. Thereafter the petitioner raised an industrial dispute bearing ID No. 437/05 whereby vide order dated 29.3.2007 the reference was answered against the workman and in favour of the respondent DTC. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the termination of the petitioner is stigmatic and, therefore, without a prior chargesheet and setting up an enquiry his services could not have been terminated by the respondent DTC. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that even if the petitioner failed to establish his continuous employment with the respondent DTC for a period of 240 days preceding the date of his termination, still his services could not have been terminated or dispensed with by the respondent without following the due procedure of holding an enquiry against the petitioner. In the alternative, the counsel submitted that the petitioner has proved on record that he had worked for 240 days preceding the date of his termination and the onus shifted on the respondent to rebut the same. Counsel further submitted that admittedly the respondent did not comply with the procedure prescribed under Section 25 F of the I.D. Act before taking action against the petitioner terminating his services. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments:-