OM PRAKASH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the Award dated 3/12/2003 passed by the Labour Court No. VII whereby the Labour Court answered the reference against the petitioner.

(2.) Briefly the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are that petitioner was working as a Driver with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). He was medically examined in May 1993. By an inadvertent mistake a letter dated 19/5/1993 was issued to him prematurely retiring him on the ground that he is medically unfit as a Driver. However, this mistake was soon discovered by the respondent and respondent corrected its mistake and recalled the order dated 19/5/1993 and passed another order dated 31/5/1993 asking petitioner that he continues to be in service should and join the duty immediately. The period from 19/5/1993 to 31/5/1993 for which he had not worked was directed to be treated as leave. Petitioner alleged that after 31/5/1993 he was not allowed to join the duties and raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication in the following terms of reference:

(3.) The Labour Court after considering the statement of claim of the petitioner and written statement of the respondent found that there was no dispute that petitioner"s services were terminated by mistake and the respondent after recalling mistaken order had been repeatedly telling the petitioner to join the duties but the petitioner did not join the duties. The respondent in the written statement had also stated that the petitioner was free to join the duties. On 3/12/2003 when the case was fixed before the Labour Court for evidence, both parties took the stand that facts were not in dispute. The Court heard arguments and decided the matter. The stand of the respondent had been that there was no termination of the services. The affidavit filed by the workman/ petitioner also showed that he was being continued on the rolls of the management, though he alleged that he was not given duties. The Tribunal observed that because of not joining duties by the petitioner, the management i.e DTC was forced to start an enquiry against the petitioner for his absence. Even in that enquiry petitioner did not cooperate. Tribunal also observed that allegations of the workman that he went repeatedly to the office of the management but was not allowed to join duties could not be believed because the workman had not even once made a complaint to any higher functionary of the management and instead remained silent. He did not comply with the directions to join duties. Tribunal, therefore, answered the reference against the workman, however, directed the workman to join management within a period of six days and the management was directed to deal with the absence period as per rules.