DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. OM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For justifying its action in putting an end to the services of its sundry workmen, the Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the DTC') has relied on Regulation 14(10)(c) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 (hereinafter referred to 'as the said Regulations'), which empowers the Management to deem/assume that its workman has resigned from service in the event that he overstays his sanctioned leave. On an industrial dispute having been raised and referred for adjudication, the Labour Court has not found the action of the Management treating the workman as having resigned from his service to be in consonance with law. The workman concerned has therefore been ordered to be reinstated along with a portion of backwages. The Awards have been assailed by the DTC in a batch of writ petitions. The gravamen of the arguments advanced on behalf of the DTC is that the Regulations have statutory force and hence must be applied without hesitation, restriction or reservation de hors the constraints end dictates of the principles of natural justice. As can be expected the workmen have supported the finding of the Labour Court and have challenged the vires of the Regulation which empowers and enables the Management to deem them to have resigned from service.

(2.) In Delhi Transport Corporation vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress and Others, 1991 SUPP. (1) Supreme Court Cases 600, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court had to consider the vires of Regulation 9 of the said Regulations. These were promulgated under Section 53 of the Delhi Road Transport Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT Act'). Chief Justice S. Mukherji upheld the constitutionality of the said Regulations on the assumption that the powers contained therein would be exercised scrupulously, uncapriciously, fairly and objectively; and that the proper remedy for an employee whose services had been illegally terminated would be by way of an action in damages. However, this view was not shared by any of the other Learned Judges who comprised the Bench; they held the Regulation to be ultra vires. As there is some similarity between Regulation 9 and Regulation 14(10)(c) which falls for consideration before me, both are reproduced in juxtaposition:

(3.) A reading of Regulation 14(l0)(b) of the said Regulations will also disclose that it intrinsically necessitates the eliciting of an explanation/response from the workman before it can be resorted to by the Management. This Regulation reads as follows: