DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RAJENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 14004 of 2016: Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

(2.) Some of the facts, which are relevant to decide this appeal are, the respondent-Workman was appointed as a sweeper/cleaner with the appellant Corporation on April 13, 1983. A charge sheet dated Nov. 29, 1988 was issued to the respondent for availing leave without pay for 118 days between the period Nov. 1987 to Oct. 1988. The charge sheet stated that the aforesaid act of the respondent amounted to misconduct within the meaning of para 4(ii) and 19(h) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of DTC employees. The charge sheet also stated that the respondent's past record would also be taken into account at the time of passing of the order. The past record of the respondent showed that he was punished with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on three occasions for availing excessive leave. The respondent-workman replied the charges and explained that due to his own sickness and that of his wife, son during Nov. 1987 to Oct. 1988, he submitted leave applications. Enquiry was held. The findings of the enquiry officer were in favour of the respondent-workman but the appellant rejected the findings of the enquiry officer. A de-novo enquiry was conducted on Jan. 17, 1989 into the allegations levelled against the respondent. In the charge sheet, as referred above, in which the respondent fully participated wherein he has admitted that he has taken leave without pay because of his illness and the illness of his children. The Enquiry Officer, in his findings found the charges levelled against the respondent as proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued notice dated Jan. 30, 1989 to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the services of the appellant-Corporation. The Disciplinary Authority considered the reply submitted by the respondent and removed him from the services of the Corporation on July 06, 1990.

(3.) The respondent raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court passed an Award dated May 25, 1999 in favour of the respondent. The appellant challenged the said Award by way of a W.P.(C) No.4030/2001. Vide order dated Nov. 10, 2004, this Court had allowed the said writ petition and set aside the Award and remanded the matter back to the Labour Court to proceed in accordance with law. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the parties led their evidence and vide the impugned Award dated Dec. 09, 2009, the appellant was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service in the same post by paying the workman a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000.00 towards back wages.