Delhi Transport Corporation v. Suraj Mal

SANJEEV NARULA, J. SEPTEMBER 25, 2023

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 25.09.2023 % DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Adv. versus SURAJ MAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. G.K. Pathak and Ms. Rubi Mishra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ. (ORAL) 1. The instant LPA has been filed challenging judgment dated 04.11.2022 passed in W.P.(C). No. 13141/2009 ("Impugned Judgment") whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the Appellants herein. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the Respondent was appointed as a driver with the Appellant on 29.05.1984. On 03.07.2000, the Respondent was consigned with the duty of driving a Bus bearing No. DEP-6106 to Sonipat around 02:00 PM from DTC Dilchaon Kalan Depot, New Delhi. It is alleged that the Respondent drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and struck the bus into another stationary bus bearing No. DEP-9506 in the bus depot. Due to the impact of the accident, Sh. Ishwar Singh who was working on DEP-9506, received grievous injury and died on the spot. Consequently, a criminal case vide FIR No. 346/2000 dated 03.07.2000 was registered at Police Station, Najafgarh u/s 279 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"). 3. Thereafter, on receipt of Report No. 369390 dated 03.07.2000, the Respondent was placed under suspension vide letter dated 04.07.2000 and a charge sheet was issued to the Respondent on the same date. A disciplinary inquiry was conducted to investigate the charges levelled upon the Respondent and the enquiry officer duly submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority, holding the charges proved against him. Pursuant to the enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 16.08.2000 ("SCN") was issued by the Depot Manager to the Respondent as to why he should not be removed from service. The SCN was challenged before this Court by the Respondent in W.P.(C) 4718/2000, which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Respondent to file a reply to the show cause notice. Eventually, on 11.06.2001, the Appellant imposed a punishment of "removal from service" upon the Respondent. 4. Aggrieved with the punishment imposed upon him, the Respondent raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer, Delhi which resulted in failure. Thereafter, the Government of NCT of Delhi ("GNCTD") referred the said industrial dispute for adjudication. The Respondent filed his statement of claim before the learned Labour Court on 28.01.2005 wherein he alleged that the enquiry conducted against him was improper and against principles of natural justice. The Appellant, in response filed its written statement wherein it submitted that the decision of the Appellant Company for removing the workman from service was based on the misconduct committed by him and keeping in view the gravity of the offence that was committed. 5. The learned Labour Court, after hearing both the parties and examining witnesses passed an Award on 22.04.2008 wherein the Labour Court observed that the Appellant hadtaken a contrary makeshift stand in the case just to avoid liability, and held the reference in favour of the Respondent and directed for reinstatement of the Respondent with 50% backwages ("Impugned Award"). 6. The Impugned Award was challenged by the Appellant herein vide the underlying Writ Petition to the extent that 50% backwages had been awarded to the Respondent. The Appellants case before the learned Single Judge was that the payment of back wages is not an automatic or natural consequence of reinstatement and that the Respondent is not entitled to receive back wages as awarded under the Impugned Award. The learned Single Judge, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Hindustan Tin Works v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80observed that while the award of back wages should not be a mechanical affair, the learned Labour Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case