DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. OM DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 20.07.2009 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma, Delhi in ID No.209/08/97 vide which the petitioner management was directed to reinstate the petitioner in the same post with same pay scale as at the time of his removal and the workman was held entitled for continuity of service with respect to his seniority, gratuity and pension, however, no backwages were awarded.

(2.) The respondent (hereinafter referred as "workman") was employed as a bus driver in the petitioner corporation with effect from 30.09.1983. The depot manager of the petitioner issued a chargesheet to the workman for being absent without permission for a period of 133 days during the period 01.01.1991 to 31.12.1991. As the workman failed to respond to the charge, the departmental enquiry was initiated and the workman was intimated about the date of enquiry, however, he failed to appear as such, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted on 24.06.1993. The enquiry officer found the charges proved and gave his findings on 24.06.1993. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 27.07.1993 was served upon the workman proposing to remove him from the services of the corporation. As the workman did not reply to the show cause notice, the corporation based on his past record removed the workman from the services of the corporation on 15.12.1993. The workman made an appeal cum demand notice to the petitioner claiming his removal as illegal and unjustified and sought reinstatement with full backwages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

(3.) The workman filed his claim petition justifying his absence as being regularised under the rules as he remained without paid. He further pleaded that the chargesheet was illegal, invalid and infructuous whereas the enquiry was conducted by incompetent person in an unfair, improper manner without supplying the list of witnesses and documents. On the other hand, management in its reply contended that the workman was never terminated.