UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. SURESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 17th October, 2003, passed by learned Labour Court, Delhi.

(2.) Briefly, the facts relevant for purposes of deciding this writ petition are that the the respondent was working as a chowkidar with the petitioner with effect from 25th March, 1983. Due to his frequent absenting from duty for long periods without any permission, he was given adverse entries in his Confidential Report for the years 1989, 1990 , 1991 and 1992. He was also issued memo for remaining absented from work without any intimation and without any prior permission on 22.2.1991, 16.6.1991, 5.4.1991, 11.2.1992, 24.2.1992, 13.4.1992, 11.5.1992, 11.6.1992, 07.4.1994, 17.11.1994, 24.10.1995 and 6.3.1995.

(3.) The respondent did not turn up for duty from 10th April, 1995 onwards and did not make any leave application or sent any intimation about the reasons for his absence for duty. The respondent was absenting from duty with effect from 10th April, 1995. The petitioner sent memos to the respondent about his unauthorized absence and calling upon him to join duty dated 28.4.1995, 6.6.1995 and 6.7.1995 but the respondent did not join on duty. Thereafter, the petitioner sent notice/memo dated 16.8.1995 to the respondent, referring to the earlier memos and called upon the respondent to explain the reasons for unauthorized absence and to show cause why action should not be taken against him in accordance with the University Rules. He was given 10 days' time to sent his explanation. No response was received from the respondent. The petitioner sent a memo dated 26th October, 1995, asking the respondent to explain the reasons of his absence without leave and to show cause why disciplinary action regarding his termination in accordance with the University's Rule No.49(2)(5) be not taken. The respondent submitted his reply to memo dated 16.8.1995 vide his letter dated 1.12.1995 and along with the reply, he sent a medical certificate issued by a private doctor dated Nil and fitness certificate issued by the same doctor dated 30.11.1995, certifying that he was fit to resume duty from 1.12.1995. However, on 1.12.1995, the respondent did not report for duty. The petitioner sent another memo dated 12.2.1996, again directing the respondent to show cause as to why period of absence from 10th April, 1995 to 30th November, 1995 should not be treated as unauthorized absence constituting the break in service making him liable for action under Rule 49(2)(v). He was also informed that he continued to remain absent till that date and had not reported to Chief Medical Officer, W.S. Health Centre, as directed earlier. He was asked to show cause as to why, due to this failure, strict action for termination of his services should not be taken in accordance with Rules. The respondent failed to respond to this memo and did not report for duty or to the Chief Medical Officer. The petitioner sent another notice dated 20.3.1996, directing the respondent to report to Chief Medical Officer or to assume duty within 10 days. Since the respondent did not respond to the memo, the petitioner invoked provisions of Rule 49(2)(v), University, Non-Teaching Staff, Termination and Conditions of Service Rules, 1971, treating the respondent absconding from service with effect from 1.12.1995 and informing the respondent about this vide letter/ memo dated 15.4.1996. The respondent raised an industrial dispute about such termination and the same was referred to the Tribunal in following terms: