In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) to challenge an award dated 18-09-2015 by the Labour Court whereby the respondent’s punishment of termination was modified to retirement along with benefits, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan refused to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
The respondent was appointed as a daily wage conductor on 08-10-1982 and his services were confirmed on 08-04-1983. On 17-02-1988and 01-03-1988, the respondent was served with a chargesheet on the allegation that he was selling forged tickets as he was found with excess cash of Rs. 25.85/- and 100 tickets of Rs. 1/- each, entry of which was not made in the way bill when he was checked by the staff of DTC.
The respondent was suspended on 13-02-1988 and an FIR was registered against him. His services were terminated in 1988 due to his participation in a strike, but was reinstated on 23-01-1990. Thereafter, the respondent was found guilty in the departmental disciplinary enquiry after which a show cause notice for removal of service was issued, which was challenged by the respondent. His suit was dismissed on 27-10-2001 and the respondent’s services were ultimately terminated on 21-12-2001.
The subject matter before the Labour Court was the legality and justifiability of the respondent’s termination. The charge of misconduct was found to be proved against the respondent on preponderance of probability. By the impugned order, the Labour Court found that the respondent’s termination was not justified. Finding the punishment to be disproportionate, the Labour Court modified the same and deemed the respondent to have been retired on 21-12-2001. DTC was also directed to provide retirement and other benefits to the respondent within a month.
After perusing the record, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order after almost 11 years. The Court stated that Labour Courts must refrain from interfering with the punishments based on bald compassionate considerations, but the same does not preclude interference if the punishment is found to be disproportionate. It was noted that the impugned order categorically mentioned that the termination was disproportionate and unjustified to the proved misconduct.
Although it was not mentioned as to how the punishment was disproportionate, the Court found that the Labour Court noted that the respondent rendered a service of more than 19 years and had only one bad entry in his previous record. The Court stated that the respondent not only suffered through the punishment imposed on him for his misconduct, but also indirectly through the tribulations of prolonged litigation as the reference before the Labour Court remained pending for five years and the present petition had been pending for more than a decade. It was also noted that the respondent was acquitted in the FIR and had also suffered agony of criminal trial.
Although the petitioner’s contention that acquittal in criminal case does not by itself warrant modification of punishment due to varying standard of proof in departmental enquiry was correct, the Court stated that considering the peculiar circumstances, it was not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the plausible view of the Labour Court. Thus, the petition was dismissed.
