INDER SAIN Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 8.12.2005 passed by the learned Labour Court in answering the reference against the petitioner whereby the Court refused to interfere with the punishment awarded by the respondent management directing removal of the petitioner workman from his service keeping in view the gravity of the charges and the previous record of the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was working as driver with the respondent DTC since 1979 with last drawn wages as Rupees 3,000/- per month. A charge sheet dated 11.12.91 was issued by the concerned Depot Manager against the petitioner concerning an incident which had occurred on 30.10.1991 wherein it was alleged that two ladies who were mother and daughter were standing at the Ashram Bus Stop to board the bus which was being driven by the petitioner and when the old lady who was accompanying her daughter tried to board the bus from the front gate while the daughter was in the process of boarding the bus from the conductor side (rear gate), the petitioner driver did not allow the old lady to enter the bus from the front gate and when she was about to board the bus from the rear gate the petitioner drove the bus despite the daughter requesting him to stop the bus. A complaint was lodged by the said ladies to Mr. Ishwar Chand ATI and the said ATI when enquired from the petitioner about the said matter, the petitioner starting abusing the ATI and rather manhandled him at the public place, report of which was lodged by the ATI at Faridabad Kotwali vide D.D.No. 12 dated 30.10.91 and such act was construed as misconduct on the part of the petitioner within the meaning of Clause 19(a) (g) (h) and (n) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of DTC employees. An enquiry was set up by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner and based on the enquiry report filed by the enquiry officer, Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of removal of the petitioner from his service in terms of Rule 15(2) of Delhi Road Transport Authority (Condition of Appointment & Service) Regulation, 1952. Feeling aggrieved with the said order of the punishment, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is not in dispute between the parties that so far issue no.1 regarding the enquiry conducted by the respondent management was concerned, the same was treated as a preliminary issue and vide order dated 26.8.2004, the learned Labour Court had decided the said issue in favour of the respondent management and against the petitioner. The said finding of the learned Labour Court was also upheld by this court vide order dated 6.4.2005 in W.P.(C) No. 5652/2005, preferred by the petitioner challenging the said findings on the preliminary issue. The only grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition to be decided by this court is on the legality and validity of the quantum of punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, which punishment was later upheld by the learned Labour Court vide impugned award dated 8.12.2005.

(3.) Arguing for the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. A.K. Mishra, very fairly submitted that so far the finding of the Labour Court on the preliminary issue regarding the enquiry had attained finality with the dismissal of the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 5652/2005 preferred by the petitioner. Assailing the findings of the learned Tribunal, whereby the award of punishment of removal was upheld, counsel submitted that the Disciplinary Authority at the time of the passing of the order of punishment did not take into consideration the past record of the petitioner while the Tribunal had referred to the past record of the petitioner where fifteen adverse entries were found against him. Learned counsel also submitted that even the Management did not refer to the said adverse entries before the Disciplinary Authority at the time of the passing of the punishment order but yet the Industrial Tribunal had referred to those fifteen adverse entries and that too in a very cavalier fashion without even having gone into the circumstances leading to registration of the said adverse entries against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that since the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation, this Court may take a lenient view by reducing the quantum of punishment of the petitioner so that at least the petitioner can get his retirement benefits.