D.T.C. Vs. PO, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Workman has died during the pendency of writ petition and is represented through his legal representatives. Workman raised an industrial dispute with the Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi which was referred to Labour Court-I, Tis Hazari, Delhi for adjudication under Section 10(I)(C) & 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration, Delhi on 8th August, 1990 in the following terms:-"Whether the termination of services of Sh. Rajender Singh is illegal and/unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

(2.) Workman filed statement of claim alleging therein that he was appointed as a Driver on daily wages in the month of April, 1988. Subsequently, he was brought on monthly rated pay with effect from 26th January, 1989. He was posted at Hari Nagar Depot-I, New Delhi. He performed his duties sincerely and honestly except for the period he remained on medical rest due to burn injuries sustained while on duty. Workman was served with an order dated 28th July, 1989 alleging therein that his services had been terminated under Clause 2(a)(i) of DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations"). This order did not specify any reason whatsoever as to why his services were terminated. On enquiries made by the workman he came to know that one security guard, namely, Narender Singh, who was posted at Hari Nagar Depot-I, in conspiracy with two other officials lodged a false report that rubber portion of bulb horn was found under the seat of his bus before out-shedding the bus from Hari Nagar Depot on 22nd July, 1989. Narender Singh was inimical to the workman. The real reason for making said false report was that on earlier occasion, that is, on 17th June, 1988 while driving the bus no. DEP-9532 the workman had sustained serious burn injuries because the engine of the bus got heated up. Workman was hospitalized but was not paid wages, inasmuch as, no compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, hereinafter referred as "the Compensation Act") was paid. When workman asked the Depot Manager to recommend his case for compensation he obtained the false and frivolous report regarding the pilferage of bulb horn assembly from his subordinates and passed the termination order. Workman alleged that he was victimized for no fault of his. He prayed for his reinstatement in service with full back wages.

(3.) In the written statement, petitioner denied the allegations levelled in the statement of claim regarding victimization and termination being illegal. It was admitted that workman had been working with the petitioner as a driver on daily wages with effect from 26th April, 1988 and thereafter on monthly rated pay with effect from 26th January, 1989, till he was terminated. It was alleged that workman remained absent from duty for 30 days within a period of 15 months of his service and was given 9 punishments during the said period. It was further stated that workman remained absent for 10 days on medical grounds. It was alleged that on 22nd July, 1989 one Security Guard reported that at about 1630 hrs. Bus No. DEP 9532 driven by the workman on route no. 17088 came at the depot gate for out-shedding and in the process of checking the bus two horn assemblies were found beneath the driver's seat. These two horn assemblies were covered with a cloth sheet. As regards allegations of non-payment of compensation under the Compensation Act, it was stated that workman was not entitled to the same as per the rules of the Corporation being daily rated employee. It was further stated that workman was on probation and his services have rightly been terminated keeping in mind his past conduct in terms of Clause 9(a)(i) of the Regulations. Termination of the workman was termination simplicitor and as per the regulations. Termination was not a punitive one.