LAWS(DLH)-2006-1-77

DCM SHRIRAM CONSOLIDATED LTD Vs. OP GUPTA

Decided On January 17, 2006
DCM SHRIRAM CONSOLIDATED LTD. Appellant
V/S
O.P.GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.03.2005, by which he has dismissed the Writ Petition.

(2.) Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and it inter-alia owns the factory, M/s Swatantra Bharat Mills, in which the Respondent No. 1 was working as a Clerk. He was charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet dated 29.10.1990, on account of his refusal to obey the orders of his superior and to perform his assigned duties which amounted to misconduct. His explanation was not found satisfactory and hence a domestic enquiry was held in which he was given full opportunity for hearing. The enquiry officer submitted his report finding the employee to be guilty of the charges. True copy of the enquiry report is Annexure P2 to the Writ Petition. The case of the workman was that he was unable to report for duty and his house was far off from the mill and he was physically handicapped. He stated that he could only report for duty during the usual duty hours and he cannot come for duty in shifts. The case of the management is that the workman was asked to report for duty in shifts due to the exigency of the work. The management repeatedly informed the workman vide letters dated 16.08.1990, 12.09.1990 and 27.09.1990 to come for work, but to no avail. In his cross-examination the workman admitted that he was able to walk. Hence the enquiry officer was of the view that his physical disability was not of such a nature that he could not report for duty in shifts. The enquiry officer also observed that it is not a condition of the employment that the management shall provide transportation facility to the employees. The workmen have to arrange for their own transportation as may be convenient to them so that they can perform their duties. The workman was given only day shift duties, but he did not accept the same. Hence he was held to be guilty of the charges and his service was terminated vide letter dated 05.06.1991, Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition.