DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. JAI GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated 25.11.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma, Delhi in ID No.79/11.

(2.) Undisputed background facts are as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the respondent was unauthorisedly absent from duties for a period of 60 days. After issuance of chargesheet, departmental enquiry was conducted. Although the enquiry issue was decided against the petitioner corporation, however, the same was not pressed during the course of argument on the ground that opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to prove the misconduct which was duly proved. After examining the record, the learned Labour Court also came to the conclusion that it was a case of grave misconduct yet a liberal view was taken by altering the sentence to that of compulsory retirement. The counsel relied upon Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Sardar Singh, 2004 7 SCC 574 , Hombe Gowda Educational Trust & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2006 1 SCC 430 and L&T Komatsu Ltd. vs. N. Udayakumar, 2008 1 SCC 224 and a judgment given by this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Shri Om Dutt in W.P.(C) No.3602/2010 for submitting that since the factum of grave misconduct on the part of the respondent was proved, the Labour Court should not have interferred with the punishment imposed by the department. Counsel further referred to the conduct of the respondent for submitting that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent had expired and his legal heirs were brought on record.