DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RAJ PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant i.e. Delhi Transport Corporation is aggrieved by an order of the learned Single Judge dismissing its writ petition. In that writ petition the corporation had challenged an award of the labour court made on 07.05.2013. The award - adverse to the corporation, answered a reference dated 11.11.1992 and held that the respondent/workman was terminated illegally and unjustifiably from its employment. The facts are that the workman, a driver, was in employment of the corporation from 09.09.1975 and while so he met with an accident on duty on 03.12.1990, and suffered disability. The corporation's medical board advised light duty to the workman and he was assigned the job of a Clerk in a store. It was contended by the workman that on 19.02.1992 when he went to resume his duties he was not allowed to do so. The management's position was that on the workman's request on the previous date, a letter was sought to be served on him advising him to go for medical check up which he refused to accept. In these circumstances, an industrial dispute was made; conciliation efforts failed. Eventually, reference was made by the appropriate government to the labour court. Reference was unanswered on two previous occasions and had rather a chequered history which is not relevant for the present purposes. Ultimately, the award was focused on the point of reference i.e. whether the workman was prevented from joining duties and whether it amounted to termination? Before the Labour Court the claim made was that the management had examined one witness MW1 who deposed in his affidavit and relied upon various documents. This witness conceded that the workman had suffered an accident and was advised light duties. Ex. MW1/6 was placed on the record which suggested that the workman was requested for medical check up on 18.02.1992. The management also relied upon a letter issued the next date i.e. Ex. MW1/7 issued by the Depot Manager asking the workman to appear before the medical board. The workman's case was that this letter was never served on him. The MW1 admitted that he was unaware whether it was served or otherwise. He also admitted to the fact relevant attendance register was not placed on the record. In these circumstances, the Labour Court concluded that the defence of the management i.e. that the workman refused to accept the letter calling upon him to report for medical check up was not proved. After considering the circumstances, the labour court concluded that there was an unjustified termination in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the labour court was unduly swayed by the fact that management terminated the services of the workman in 1999, after culmination of show cause notice for absence for a 10 months period during 1997 and 1998. The learned Single Judge by an elaborated judgment considered all the factual materials including the previous litigation history in this case. The impugned judgment records as follows:

(3.) The learned Single Judge noticed that the corporation had not made out a case that the workman had voluntarily abandoned his service. Rather tellingly she observed: