JAI SINGH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DESPITE second call, nobody appears for the petitioner. It is not out of place to mention here that on 11th April, 2008, arguments were heard from M. Hussain Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Avnish Ahlawat Counsel for the respondent and case was reserved for orders. Counsel for the petitioner wanted to file judgments. He was given liberty to file judgment by 21st April, 2008. Since none has appeared till 3. 15 PM, therefore, I proceed to dictate the order,

(2.) JAJ Singh, the petitioner was appointed as conductor with the respondent DTC on 16. 08. 1983. He was confirmed as a conductor on 15. 11. 1984. The petitioner and his wife, unfortunately remained seriously ill which forced the petitioner to avail 130 days leave I. e. from 01. 01. 1993 to 31. 05. 1994. Although, the petitioner submitted proper leave application in the office supported by medical certificate, yet the respondent rejected the same as the leave was without prior information, and unauthorized. The respondent was issued a chargesheet for the above said unauthorized leave on 12. 9. 1994. On 24. 3. 1995 the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Competent Authority on 20. 12. 1999 i. e. , after the lapse of about four years and nine months. The competent Authority rejected the appeal on 15. 2. 2000 as it was barred by time. Qn 24. 02. 2000 the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation Officer, Labour Department; Govt. of mct of Delhi at Pusa Road, New Delhi. The Government referred the matter before the Labour court. On 3. 09. 2007 the Labour Court passed the impugned award against the petitioner and the award was published on 31. 12. 2007. Aggrieved by the above said award the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayer:

(3.) I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel, for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner and his wife were sick and therefore the petitioner could not attend the duty for a period of 130 days. He also pointed out that the punishment of dismissal from service is dis-appropriate and instead of taking such a harsh view the dtc should have taken some lenient view.