* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 8848/2009 % Date of Decision: 07 July, 2009 # Harbhajan ..... Petitioner ! Through: Ms. Rashmi B. Singh, Advocate. Versus $ Delhi Transport Corporation. .....Respondent ^ Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The workman (petitioner herein) has filed this writ petition seeking to challenge the award dated 16.07.2007 passed by Mr. Harish Dudani, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. XVII, Delhi rejecting his claim for reinstatement or back wages. 2 This case was taken up for admission hearing on 11.05.2009 and on that day, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner took an adjournment for placing the pleadings filed before the Labour Court on record and despite opportunity granted to the petitioner, pleadings have not been placed on record till date. Ms. Rashmi B. Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner today again requests for an adjournment for filing of documents for which adjournment prayed even on 11.05.2009. This request is declined. W.P.(C) No.8848/2009 Page 1 of 4 3 Heard. 4 The petitioner was appointed as a conductor in the Delhi Transport Corporation (respondent herein) in August, 1978. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 01.11.1995 for holding an inquiry against him for his unauthorized absence for 86 days during the period from January to August, 1995. The petitioner was found guilty in the domestic inquiry held against him. The petitioner was a habitual absenter prior to inquiry for his unauthorized absence for 86 days was held against him in terms of charge-sheet dated 01.11.1995. There are 20 red entries in the service record of the petitioner and even on earlier occasions penalty of reduction of his pay was imposed against him on two occasions. The disciplinary authority after considering the report of the inquiry officer and also taking into account the past conduct of the petitioner terminated him from service vide order dated 30.09.1996. 5 The petitioner aggrieved by his termination by the respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court vide its award, impugned in the present writ petition, held that the termination of the petitioner was legal and justified. The court below vide its order dated 03.04.2007 decided the inquiry issue also against the petitioner and it was held that principal of natural justice were duly adhered to during domestic inquiry into the charges held against the petitioner. 6 Ms. R.B. Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the impugned award is liable to be struck down because the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner was vague; the breakup of the period of absence during January to August, 1995 was not made available to the petitioner and also on account of the fact that W.P.(C) No.8848/2009 Page 2 of 4 there was no presenting officer before the inquiry officer. All these arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner are wholly untenable as they are without merit. Charge-sheet dated 01.11.1995 (at page 28 of the paper book) clearly spells out the charge against the petitioner that he was unauthorizedly absent for 86 days during the period from January, 1995 to August, 1995. The petitioner was also put on notice by charge- sheet dated 01.11.1995 that his past conduct will also be taken into account while considering his unauthorized absence for 86 days. As far as non-supply of the break up of period of absence is concerned, it may be noted that the respondent vide its communication dated 17.11.1995 (Annexure-E at page 31 of the paper book) communicated to the petitioner that the period of his unauthorized absence is already available in the pay slip issued to him every month during the period he remained unauthorizedly absent. The question of non-supply of documents appears to be misconceived. 7 The petitioner was given adequate opportunity to prove his defence against the charge of unauthorized absence for 86 days leveled against him in charge memo dated 01.11.1995. The petitioner does not dispute his absence for 86 days during the period from January to August, 1995 in the present writ petition. The contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not have been terminated from service because his alleged absence from service was not continuous. This argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner in fact goes against the petitioner and it proves that the petitioner was a habitual absenter, though his unauthorized absence for 86 days during the period from January to August, 1995 may not be continuous. The petitioner has not rebutted in the ground of challenge contained in the writ petition that he did not had 20 red entries in his service record or W.P.(C) No.8848/2009 Page 3 of 4 about the penalty of reduction of pay imposed upon him on two earlier occasions prior to passing of the termination order dated 30.09.1996. This implies an admission by the petitioner about his past conduct. 8 The petitioner was a conductor in Delhi Transport Corporation, which is a public utility department. Unauthorized absence of the petitioner and that too a habitual absence caused a disruption in the running of buses and inconvenience to the commuters availing the facilities of DTC buses. The misconduct proved against the petitioner and penalty of termination imposed upon him is squarely covered by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DTC Vs. Sardar Singh 2004 (6) Scale 613. 9 In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. July 07, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL a [JUDGE] W.P.(C) No.8848/2009 Page 4 of 4