The Delhi High Court on 15.01.2019, in DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v SHRI RAJ SINGH, dismissed the petition by upholding it as devoid of any merit. The petition had been filed to quash the Award which had been passed by the Presiding Officer, Labor Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi wherein a direction was given for the payment of compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,00 towards back wages along with the gratuity to the respondent.

FACTS: The respondent being appointed to the post of a bus Conductor in petitioner/Corporation had been posted at Hari Nagar Bus Depot II, wherein he was alleged to have entered the Deputy Manager’s room for asking him in assigning duties to him while physically assaulting. As a result, two departmental complaints had been made pertaining to the incident upon the same date. Subsequently, a charge sheet which was issued to the respondent, where the respondent was given an opportunity for explaining the alleged misconduct in which the respondent denied his presence as he was hospitalized on that the date of such incident while further alleging that such case was falsely fabricated and was a result of prejudice. During the departmental inquiry, the report proved the charges made against the respondent resulting in the removal of him from the services. Eventually, when a reference was made to the concerned authority, the Labor Court held the removal of the respondent from the services as highly unjustified while directing an amount of Rs.2,00,00/- to be paid to the respondent as compensation towards the back wages along with the gratuity. Being aggrieved a petition was filed before the Delhi High Court.

DECISION HELD BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT:The DH Court while considering the petition devoid of any merit concluded that Inquiry Officer had committed a serious lapse as it  had failed to summon the doctor as a witness of the defense resulting in the prejudicing of the case and that the findings made during the inquiry were held as perverse while upholding the award and order passed by the Labor Court considering the age of the respondent and the hardships that he had to face due to the removal from the services.

Full Judgment:

[embeddoc url=”http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/REP/judgement/15-01-2019/REP15012019CW56582011.pdf” download=”all”]