D T C Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 29.11.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the appellant"s WP(C) 4948/2001 and affirming the Award dated 5.4.2000 passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the Respondent No. 1 workman with full back wages.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the Respondent No.1 was appointed as Conductor-cum-Apprentice Workman with the appellant on 6.8.1976. Later on, his services were confirmed on 10.7.1978. According to the Respondent No.1, he was assigned the duty of a Ticket Tally Clerk (TTC) in the Ticket Section of the Patparganj Depot, Delhi. There he found that a racket in the theft of tickets was being operated with the active connivance of one other TTC, the in-charge of the ticket section and other senior officers. At the end of each day in respect of the tickets deliberately got stolen, the TTC on duty would be made the scapegoat and forced to pay up a certain sum of money as compensation. His representations to the Senior Manager fell on deaf ears. On the contrary he was attacked on more than three occasions physically and threatened with further assault if he attempted to expose their mistakes. Instead of taking actions against the said persons, chargesheets were issued against the Respondent No.1. He was refused medical leave and was directed to report for duty at the very same place where he was receiving the threats to his life. In a third incident of assault he was badly injured some time in January 1984 and thereafter when he failed to report for duty, he was declared as absent and deemed to have resigned by an order dated 7.8.1984 in terms of Clause 14(10)(c) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (`DRTA Regulations'), which reads as under:

(3.) The case of the management on the other hand was that the Respondent No.1 workman misbehaved with the checking officials on 21.7.1983 while he was on duty and was issued a chargesheet for the said misconduct. Thereafter he was asked to report for enquiry on every Monday and Friday but he submitted representation for change of the enquiry. The management denied the allegations of any collusion in respect of the theft of tickets and coercion of the TTCs. Since the Respondent workman was not reporting for duty from 11.1.1984 onwards, a reminder was sent on 3.4.1984. Thereafter a show cause notice was served on him on 4.6.1984. Ultimately by a memo dated 7.8.1984 he was declared absent and deemed to have resigned with effect from 12.4.1984 invoking Regulation 14 (10) (c) of the DRTA Regulations. Admittedly this was done without any opportunity of being heard, or issuing any chargesheet or holding any enquiry in regard to the allegations of absence from duty.