Delhi District Court
Ashwini Kumar vs M/S Dtc on 5 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF RITU SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE & ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - IV,
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI.
LIR No. 1201/2019
CNR No. DLCT13-001715-2019
Sh. Ashwani Kumar
S/o Sh. Dhani Ram
R/o H.No. B-1040, Gali no.6,
Block-B, Gurudware Wali Gali,
Khajoori Khass, Dayal Pur,
New Delhi-110094 ....Workman
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Through its General Manager
Having office at :
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Yamuna Vihar Depot, Delhi-110053 .... Management
Date of institution of the case: 17.05.2023
Date of passing the Award : 05.02.2026
Decision : Dismissed.
AWARD
1.Vide this Award, this Court shall decide the Industrial Dispute which was referred by Deputy Labour Commissioner, District-East/North-East, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on a complaint filed by the aforesaid workman against the Management, vide reference no.F.24(22)/Lab/NE/2019/Ref/600 dated 07.02.2019, u/s 10 (1) (c) and 12 (5) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein the following reference was to be answered:-
"Whether the services of workman Sh. Ashwani Kumar S/o Sh. Dhani Ram have LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 1 of 31 been terminated by the management vide dated 05.09.2014 is legal, and/or justified, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?".
2. Notice of the reference was issued to the workman. Pursuant thereto, AR of the workman appeared before Court, but despite repeated opportunities, workman/his AR failed to file the statement of claim and therefore, on 01.11.2019, 'No Dispute Award' was passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
3. Later, on application filed by workman for setting aside 'No Dispute Award' dated 01.11.2019, Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide his order dated 19.09.2023 had allowed the said application and accordingly case was restored to its original number and position.
THE CLAIM OF THE WORKMAN
4. Thereafter, workman had filed his statement of claim, challenging his illegal termination from the post of "Driver" vide office order dated 05.09.2014 of the management. Workman has claimed that he was working with the management since 25.11.1983, on the post of "Driver" and that management had issued an Identity Card to him in the year 04.03.1998, bearing batch no.142013.
5. Workman has stated in the statement of claim that since the date of joining the management, he had been performing his duties efficiently and honestly and no complaint was ever made against him during his service tenure and that he was never issued any memo/notice during his service period.
6. Workman has stated in the statement of claim that in the LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 2 of 31 year 2012, his mother was seriously ill as she was suffering from kidney stone and in 2013, he got his mother operated for kidney stone and she was also operated for eye sight problem and at that time his son namely Yashpal was also seriously ill as he was suffering from Dengue fever. Workman has claimed that due to these reasons, he was unable to attend his duty in management and that intimation regarding his leave was also sent by him to the management.
7. Workman has stated in the statement of claim that during that period the workman always gave due intimation to management as and when he intended to take leave for the above said reason. Workman has claimed that he has full record regarding the treatment of his mother and his son and he usually sent the medical record of treatment of his mother to the management.
8. Workman has stated in the statement of claim that thereafter a lengthy correspondence took place between himself and the management. He has stated in the statement of claim that he had given intimation for leave to the concerned depot as his mother was seriously ill at that time but the concerned official for the reason best known to them did not deliver the same as per the procedure.
9. Workman has alleged in his statement of claim that he was issued a show-cause notice dated 21.04.2014 by management, vide which management had suspended him from service and after lengthy correspondence with management, he was terminated from service by management vide termination letter dated 05.09.2014 and his termination was illegal and unjustified LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 3 of 31 as it was effected without giving him genuine, proper and due opportunity of hearing during the inquiry conducted by management and without following genuine legal procedure during inquiry proceedings. He has alleged that management has not conducted fair inquiry against him and that management had failed to establish his negligence on basis of any genuine facts.
10. Workman has alleged in his statement of claim that management has failed to mention that as to why the fair inquiry was not conducted in his case and that management has further failed to establish any genuine facts thereby showing any alleged negligence on his part.
11. Workman has alleged that number of times he had given his written representations to the management join his duty, but the management had intentionally and knowingly failed to perform its part of assurance and that he has never provided fair inquiry.
12. Aggrieved by his illegal termination, the workman had sent a legal demand notice dated 12.04.2017 through registered post to the management. Thereafter, workman had also filed his complaint before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, District North-East, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi but to no avail.
13. By way of present claim, workman has prayed that an award be passed in his favour and against management directing the management to reinstate him in service alongwith full back wages and other consequential benefits.
14. Notice of the statement of claim was issued and served on the management and management had entered appearance on 01.11.2023 and filed its written statement on 06.03.2024.
LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 4 of 31 VERSION OF MANAGEMENT IN ITS WRITTEN STATEMENT
15. The management has admitted in its written statement that workman had joined the services of the management on 25.11.1983 as "Driver", though it has been contended by management that his service record was not found satisfactory as he remained unauthorizedly absent from his services, without any justification and without approval of leaves from the management, which clearly shows his misconduct within the terms of Rule 15 (2) of DRTA (Condition of Appointment and service) Regulation 1952 and Rule 19 of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of employees of Delhi Road Transport Authority issued under Para 15 (1) of DRTA (Condition of Appointment and service) Regulation 1952.
16. Management has asserted that in the written statement that workman was dismissed after conducting a reasonable, just, fair and proper enquiry in which workman was given full opportunity to participate and defend himself.
17. Management has asserted that on 21.04.2014, workman was supplied with the chargesheet and on 30.04.2014, workman had given a reply to the chargesheet explaining the reasons for his unauthorized absenteeism for the period w.e.f. January' 2013 to December 2013.
18. Management has claimed that during the inquiry proceedings dated 03.07.2014 workman was supplied with all the documents and apprised of his right to engage representative, however the same was declined by the workman on the ground LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 5 of 31 that he would himself pursue the case.
19. During inquiry proceedings, statement of prosecution (management) witnesses was recorded by the inquiry officer, but, workman had refused to cross-examine them and that the workman was given opportunity to lead defense advance arguments both oral or written, workman had declared to lead his defense on the ground that his reply dated 30.04.2014 be read as his final reply/arguments.
20. Management has contended in the written statement that the Inquiry Officer, after considering the evidence and documents, inter-alia past service record and after having rendered fair opportunity to both the sides, concluded the inquiry proceedings. It is stated that Inquiry Officer had given his findings in inquiry report that the charges leveled against workman vide charge sheet dated 21.04.2014, was proved and workman was guilty of misconduct of unauthorized absenteeism for the period of January' 2013 to December' 2013 within the terms of aforesaid. Regulation and Standing Order of management.
21. Management has contended that in the written statement that pursuant to the conclusion of the inquiry, the workman was duly served with the show cause notice on 16.08.2014 whereby he was granted a period of 10 days to furnish reply to proposed punishment of 'dismissal from service' but workman had failed to file any reply. Management has contended that since workman was found to be unauthorizedly absent for 225 days during 2013 and that his past service record revealed that he was unauthorizedly absent from duty for 175 days during the period LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 6 of 31 from January 2012 to December 2012, therefore workman was dismissed from service vide Dismissal order/letter dated 05.09.2014.
22. It is further contended in the written statement that as per the recruitment rules for the post of driver, the age of superannuation for the Driver is 55 years as prescribed under Office Order 99/63 and circular dated 02.11.2012. Further, on perusal of the terms of reference 07.02.2019, the particulars of the workman as mentioned therein clearly shows that the workman has already attained the age of superannuation much prior when the matter qua illegal termination was referred by the appropriate Govt. to this Court. Hence, under no circumstance whatsoever the workman is entitled to re-instatement to his services by the management.
23. Management has contended in its written statement that no demand notice prior to raising of present industrial dispute had ever got served upon the management.
24. It is further contended that workman was dismissed from his services by the management vide letter dated 05.09.2014, but he remained silent for a considerable period or 4 years (approx.) and thereafter he had sent legal notice to the management vide letter dated 17.04.2017, which clearly shows that his absence from duties was not only unauthorized but also willful.
25. Management has asserted that it had sent various intimations to the workman vide its letter dated 14.11.2013, 28.02.2014 and 26.03.2014 asking workman to either get his medical records examined by the medical board, if at all his medical condition is not well or to join back on duty forthwith, LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 7 of 31 but workman had failed to place any documents before the management. It is further contended that pursuant to the conclusion of the inquiry the workman was duly served with the show cause notice dated 11.08.2014 to 16.08.2014 through speed post no.ED 4531697381N whereby he was granted a period of 10 days to file the reply however even then he did not bother to advance any reply to the same.
26. Management has denied the remaining allegations of workman levelled in his statement of claim and management has prayed for dismissal of present claim petition of the workman.
27. Rejoinder to the written statement of the management was filed by the workman, wherein he has reiterated his claim, while denying the allegations of management levelled against him in its written statement.
28. Thereafter, vide order dated 06.07.2024, the following issues were framed in view of pleadings of the parties and terms of reference :
(i) Whether the claim is barred by delay and latches? OPM
(ii) Whether the services of the workman Sh.
Ashwani Kumar S/o Sh. Dhani Ram have been terminated illegally and/ or unjustifiably by the management on 05.09.2014 ? OPW
(iii) What relief is the workman entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? OPW EVIDENCE OF WORKMAN
29. Thereafter, case was fixed for workman's evidence.
30. In order to prove its case, workman appeared as witness and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/1 LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 8 of 31 wherein he reiterated his version on solemn affirmation. Besides this, he had also relied on the documents which are Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW1/H and Mark-A to Mark-C.
31. Thereafter workman's evidence was closed and case was fixed for management's evidence.
EVIDENCE OF MANAGEMENT
32. The management has examined Sh. Mukesh Sharma as MW1 who has filed his evidence affidavit Ex.MW1/A wherein he has reiterated the contents of written statement of management. Besides this, he had also relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/11 (out of which Ex.MW1/7 has already been exhibited as Ex.WW1/M3 and Ex.MW1/10 has already been exhibited as Ex.WW1/E).
33. During trial of the case, this Court on 11.12.2025 had framed following preliminary issue in accordance with guidelines in this regard in judgments of Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. Ltd. Vs. Management & Others (1973) and Shankar Chakravarti Vs. Britania Biscut Co. Ltd. & Anr. (1979) 3 SCR 1165 as objections were taken by workman in his statement of claim, wherein he had challenged the fairness and validity of inquiry conducted by the management against him.
Preliminary Issue :
Whether the inquiry conducted by the management against the workman was not fair, valid, proper and not in accordance with principles of natural justice ? OPW LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 9 of 31
34. The workman as well as management were granted opportunity to lead further evidence on preliminary issue, but both the parties had opted to rely on evidence already tendered by them, as their evidence on preliminary issue.
35. This Court has heard detail arguments addressed by authorized representatives of both the sides on the preliminary issue. Written submissions was filed by workman. Written submissions alongwith compilation of judgments was also filed by management on preliminary issue. Written submissions, judgments and documents on record has been perused. The findings of this Court on the preliminary issue are as under:-
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE ISSUE Whether the inquiry conducted by the management against the workman was not fair, valid, proper and not in accordance with principles of natural justice ? OPW
36. The onus to prove this issue was on workman.
37. The workman has claimed in his statement of claim that he had been working as driver in the management, since 25.11.1983 and he has been efficiently and honestly discharging his duty in management since then.
38. Workman has alleged in his statement of claim that he was issued a show-cause notice dated 21.04.2014 by management, vide which management had suspended him from service and after lengthy correspondence with management, he was terminated from service by management vide termination letter dated 05.09.2014 and his termination was illegal and unjustified LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 10 of 31 as it was effected without giving him genuine, proper and due opportunity of hearing during the inquiry conducted by management and without following genuine legal procedure during inquiry proceedings. He has alleged that management has not conducted fair inquiry against him and that management had failed to establish his negligence on basis of any genuine facts.
39. Workman has pleaded in his statement of claim that in the year 2012, his mother was seriously ill as she was suffering from acute pain due to kidney stone and in the year 2013, she was operated for kidney stone and she also underwent eye operation. He has further alleged that at that time his son namely Yashpal, was also seriously ill as he was suffering from Dengue Fever and he has justified his absence from duty in 2013, on these grounds as he has alleged that he was unable to attend his duty then since he was looking after them.
40. Workman has claimed that during the said period, he had always given due intimation to management, as and when he intended to take leave for the above said reason and that he used to send the medical records regarding the treatment of his mother to the management, but concerned officials of his department did not deliver the same as per procedure and his factual position was never taken in record. He had sent legal demand notice to management on 12.04.2017.
41. Management has admitted in its written statement, that workman was its employee and was working as 'Driver' in management since 25.11.1983.
42. However, management has denied that workman was illegally terminated by management. Management has asserted LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 11 of 31 that workman had been unauthorizedly absent from duty for total 225 days during period from 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2013 and that this unauthorized absence of workman in 2013 amounted to 'misconduct' as per Regulations & Standing Orders of management, and for this misconduct, management had served chargesheet dated 21.04.2014 on the workman.
43. Management has claimed that workman had given his reply dated 30.04.2014 to the chargesheet. The management did not find his explanation plausible considering his past service record and decided to initiate inquiry against the workman.
44. Management has claimed that workman had participated in inquiry proceedings and he was supplied with all the documents relied in inquiry proceedings and he was apprised of his right to engage representative, however he had declined the same. Management has asserted that during inquiry, the statement of prosecution (management) witnesses was recorded by the inquiry officer and opportunity was given to workman to cross-examine them, but the workman refused to cross examine them and thereafter workman was given opportunity to advance arguments both oral or written, but workman had declined and informed Inquiry Officer that his reply dated 30.04.2014 (given in response to chargesheet), be read as his submissions/arguments.
45. The management has claimed that the Inquiry Officer, after giving fair opportunity to both the sides concluded the inquiry proceedings, in terms of Regulations & Standing Orders of management. Inquiry Officer had given his findings in inquiry report on basis of evidence and documents, wherein he held that LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 12 of 31 the charges leveled against the workman in chargesheet dated 21.04.2014 had been proved against him and the workman was held guilty of misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty, during January 2013 to December 2013.
46. Management has claimed that after conclusion of inquiry, the management had sent show-cause notice dated 11.08.2014 to workman, which was duly served on him on 16.08.2014, vide which he was afforded opportunity to furnish his representation/ reply within 10 days to proposed punishment of "dismissal from service" for his established misconduct of unauthorized absence. Management has alleged that workman did not furnish any reply to the show-cause notice.
47. Management has claimed that the workman was dismissed from service vide dismissal Order letter 05.09.2014 after holding a just, fair and a proper enquiry against workman. Management has asserted that it had dispensed with service of workman vide dismissal order dated 05.09.2014, after conducting reasonable, just, fair and proper inquiry against him. Management has claimed that workman was given full opportunity to participate and defend himself in inquiry proceedings conducted by management.
48. Management has alleged that the past service record of workman was 'not satisfactory' and it reveals that he used to remain unauthorizedly absent from duty for long periods, for which punitive action was taken against him, like stoppage of his increments and that he had been unauthorizedly absent from duty for 175 days during the period from January 2012 to December 2012. Management has asserted that service record of LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 13 of 31 workman was 'not satisfactory' and that during his service,he had remained unauthorizedly absent from duty on several occasions, without plausible justification and without getting leaves approved from competent authority, which amounts to 'misconduct' under Rule 15 (2) of DRTA (Condition of Appointment and Service) Regulation 1952 and Rule 19 of Standing Orders. Management has filed service record of workman to substantiate its claim.
49. Management has claimed that workman has failed to show that there was compelling reasons for his unauthorized absence and thus his absence was willful and deliberate.
50. Management has also asserted that management had sent letters dated 14.11.2013, 28.02.2014 and 26.03.2014 to workman, asking him to join back duty or to get his medical record examined by medical board, but even thereafter the workman failed to join his duty or produce relevant medical records. Management has denied that any intimation was given by workman to management regarding illness of his mother or son.
51. In order to discharge the onus of proving this issue, the workman has relied on documentary evidence including copy of medical records of his mother and son, which Marl-C (colly) besides the documents Ex. WW1/A to Ex.WW1/F. To rebut the claim of workman, the management's witness MW Sh. Mukesh Sharma has relied on documents Ex. MW1/1 to Ex. MW1/11.
52. In the case at hand, relevant facts are that workman was working as Driver in management since 25.11.1983 and he was governed by the Delhi Road Corporation Authority (Conditions LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 14 of 31 of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 and Regulation 15(2)(C) of the said Regulations, 1952 regulates the procedure to be followed while conducting the disciplinary proceedings against employees, including the present workman.
53. Regulation 15(2)(C) of Delhi Road Corporation Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 inter alia, reads as follows:
"Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions, no order of dismissal, removal or any other punishment except censure shall be passed against an employee of the Authority other than an order based on facts before a Criminal Court unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to form a separate charge or charges which shall be communicated to the person charged and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. The employee shall be required to be within a specified time to submit a written reply to the charges and to state whether he desired to be heard in person also. If he so desires and the competent authority so directs an oral enquiry shall be held. The officer conducting the enquiry may record facts brought out in such enquiry and may utilize them for coming to a finding on the truth or otherwise or the charge or charges levelled employees. The Welfare Officer if any employed with the Authority may attend such enquiry to watch the interest of the employees but shall not intervene or obtrude in proceedings at any stage. The proceedings shall contain a statement of the finding and grounds thereof"
54. In the case at hand, the inquiry was conducted by management against workman in respect of charges levelled against him in chargesheet dated 21.04.2014 (Ex. WW1/C) whereby he was charged of unauthorized absence from duty for LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 15 of 31 period of 225 days during January 2013 to December 2013, without sanctioned leave, which led to economic loss and operational difficulty to the management and that for this 'misconduct', disciplinary action was initiated against him, in terms of Rule 15 (2) of DRTA (Conditions of appointment and Service) Regulation 1952 and Rule 19 of its Standing Orders of management governing conduct of employees of management.
55. In Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. vs. Their Workmen, 1963 SC 1914, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had discussed the procedure for conducting an enquiry for industrial adjudication and held that an enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless:-
1. the workman proceeded against must be informed clearly of the charges levelled against him;
2. the witnesses must be examined in the presence of the workman;
3. the workman must be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses including himself if he so wishes; and;
4. the Enquiry Officer must record his findings with reasons in his report.
56. In the case at hand, the workman has admitted in his cross-examination that he had participated in inquiry proceedings and he had also admitted his signatures at points marked as 'A' on each sheet of inquiry proceedings, which are part of Ex.WW1/M3 (Colly). Although, the workman had voluntarily explained that management had got his signature on Ex. WW1/M3, when he had gone to attend his duty, yet there are no allegations to the effect that his signatures were taken under compulsion or coercion by management. The evidence affidavit as well as his statement of claim is silent on this point.
LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 16 of 31 Therefore, there are no valid reasons to infer that signatures of workman on Ex. WW1/M3, were under any force or compulsion. Since workman has admitted his signatures on Ex. WW1/M3 (Colly), therefore, on basis of his admission and Ex. WW1/M3, it can be safely concluded that:-
(a) workman was supplied with all the documents relied in inqury;
(b) workman had refused to take assistance of the representative, during inquiry proceedings, despite being informed of his right to avail the same;
(c) workman was given opportunity to cross-
examine management's witnesses Sh. Sudesh Kumar and Ms Sumanlata, but he refused to avail opportunity;
(d) workman was given opportunity to produce evidence and examine witness in his defence during inquiry, but he had declined.
57. From the conspectus of the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by both the parties as well as material placed on record, following observations are relevant to decide on legality and validity of inquiry conducted by management :-
(a) Due Service of chargesheet dated 21.04.2014 (Ex.WW1/C) on the workman and opportunity to furnish explanation/reply to abovesaid chargesheet has been admitted by workman. Admittedly, he had sent his reply dated 30.04.2014 (Ex.WW1/M2) to management.
(b) There is no dispute to the fact that after considering the reply dated 30.04.2014 (Ex. WW1/M2) of the workman, management had decided to initiate inquiry against him.
(c) Participation of workman in inquiry proceedings LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 17 of 31 has been admitted by workman during his cross-
examination on 01.10.2024, wherein he admitted that he had attended and participated the inquiry proceedings conducted by management at its SBV office, IP Depot at IP Extension, Delhi.
(d) Opportunity to engage representative during inqiury proceedings was granted to workman granted, but workman had declined the same and this fact finds corroboration from Ex. WW1/M3.
(e) Supply of documents relied in inquiry. Workman has also admitted in his cross-examination that he had received the record of inquiry proceedings, that is, Ex. WW1/M3 and he had also admitted his signatures at points marked as A in Ex.WW1/3. Perusal of Ex. WW1/M3 shows that documents were supplied to workman, under his signature as recorded at point A on first page of Ex. WW1/M3.
(f) Opportunity to cross-examine the management witnesses Sh. Sudesh Kumar (Driver) and witness Smt. Suman Lata, was given to the workman by inquiry officer, but workman had refused to cross- examine them and this fact finds corroboration from Ex. WW1/M3.
(g) Opportunity to lead evidence/documents in his defence was given to the workman, but he did not lead any evidence in his defence nor he had examined any witness in his defence and he had stated that his reply to chargesheet (i.e. his reply dated 30.04.2014, Ex.WW1/M2) be considered as his explanation and concluding arguments/remarks in inquiry proceedings LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 18 of 31 and this fact finds corroboration from Ex. WW1/M3.
(h) Detailed inquiry report was prepared by Inquiry Officer after considering the evidence of the witnesses, documents and service record of workman and it was recorded that workman had failed to send application for leave and medical records to the management and this fact finds corroboration from inquiry report (Ex. MW1/7 also referred as Ex. WW1/M3).
(i) Supply of final inquiry report (forming part of Ex. WW1/M3 (Colly) has also been admitted by the workman.
(j) Service of Show-cause notice dated 11.08.2014 (Ex. WW1/D) and an opportunity to make representation / reply thereto has been admitted by the workman in his cross-examination, though he alleged that he received the notice after about 12-13 days. In this regard it is relevant to point out here that the management has rebutted the aforesaid averments of the workman by leading testimonial deposition of MW1 Sh. Mukesh Sharma in his evidence affidavit Ex.MW1/A that the show-cause notice dated 11.08.2014 was delivered on 16.08.2014 as per the speed post tracking ID ED No.453169738IN. Moreover, it is not the contention of workman in his statement of claim or in his evidence affidavit, that he was not granted sufficient time to furnish his reply/representation to second show-cause notice dated 11.08.2014.
(k) Admittedly, the workman had not given any reply to show-cause notice dated 11.08.2014.
(l) Management has proved that since no explanation LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 19 of 31 was put forth by workman in response to show cause notice dated 11.08.2014, management vide its office order dated 05.09.2014 had imposed penalty of 'dismissal from service' on workman in terms of Rule 15 of DRTA (Appointment and Service) Rules 1952 and this fact finds corroboration from Ex. MW1/11 (also referred as Ex.WW1/E).
58. In view of foregoing observations, the contention of workman that he was not given any opportunity of fair and proper hearing during inquiry by the management, is totally misplaced and unsubstantiated. Similarly, allegations of workman of non-compliance of legal procedure and statutory regulations by management in conducting the departmental enquiry against him, are baseless and without merits and thus not sustainable. The workman has failed to establish that the management has not conducted the inquiry in accordance with principal of natural justice nor prove unfairness or biasness against the management.
59. In case at hand, the workman was absent from duty without prior permission of Competent Authority and therefore, it was for workman to justify his absence of 225 days during 2013.
60. In these circumstances, it becomes relevant to refer to Para (4) of Standing Orders of management, issued under Para 15 (1) of Regulation 1952 and as per Para (4), employee of management cannot remain absent from duty, without prior permission from competent authority, except in case of sudden illness and relevant extract of said Para (4) of Standing Order of management is reproduced herein for reference:
LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 20 of 31 "4. Absence without permission.--(i) An employee shall not absent himself from his duties without having first obtained the permission from the authority or the competent officer except in the case of sudden illness.
In the case of sudden illness he shall send intimation to the office immediately. If the illness lasts or is expected to last for more than 3 days at a time, applications for leave should be duly accompanied by a medical certificate, from a registered medical practitioner or the Medical Officer of DTS. In no case shall an employee leave station without prior permission."
61. Thus, as per abovesaid Standing Order of management, only in case of sudden illness, as employee of management is permitted to take leave, without prior permission from competent authority. Even in such cases of sudden illness, employee is required to send intimation to his office immediately and if the illness lasts or is expected to last for more than 3 days at a time, application for leave should be duly accompanied by a medical certificate from registered medical practitioner as Medical Officers of DTS.
62. The claim of the workman that his absence during 2013 was necessitated as he had got his mother operated for kidney stone as well as for eyes in 2013, has been contradicted by him in his cross-examination, wherein he had admitted that his mother was operated for kidney stone and also underwent eye operation the year 2012 itself. Thus, the contradiction in the testimony of the workman on this material aspect, renders his testimony unworthy of credence and does not inspire confidence of the Court.
63. Also, the testimony of the workman on the point that he had sent intimation of his leave as well as medical records of his mother to the management, is vague, ambiguous and LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 21 of 31 unsubstantiated as he has neither mentioned the date/dates on which he had purportedly sent intimation to management nor given name or designation of officials of management to whom he had sent intimation nor he has furnished any proof of dispatch of medical record of his mother or proof of service thereof on management.
64. During his cross-examination, the workman had taken stand that he had telephonically informed the management about ill health of his mother and had also given written application for leave to management after about 3-4 days of availing such leave. However, workman has not furnished the details, such as name, designation, telephone number of the recipient of telephonic information to whom he had conveyed the information. He had also failed to produce on record copy of any leave application purportedly sent by him to management. Thus, he has failed to substantiate his claim that he had sent leave application to the management, by producing record of such leave application. Even the claim of the workman that he had sent telephonic information to the management, lacks bonafides.
65. It is also relevant to note that medical records of mother or son of the workman was not sent by him to the management along with his reply dated 30.04.2014 nor it was filed during inquiry proceedings. It is only during trial of the present case that workman has filed medical records (Mark-C, Colly) of his mother and son. Medical record of his wife, has not been produced by the workman.
66. Evidently, workman has miserably failed in adducing credible evidence on record to establish that he had sent any LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 22 of 31 leave application to management or even medical record of his mother to management, before availing the leave or even after availing leave and this fact also finds corroboration from inquiry report (Ex.MW1/M3), wherein inquiry officer has specifically rerecord that workman had failed to send application for leave alongwith medical documents of his mother and wife to concerned Depot of management.
67. In these facts and circumstances, the third para of Guideline (XI) in 'Guidelines on Unauthorized Absence' (which is part of Ex.MW1/2) attracted and is relevant and same is reproduced herein for the purpose of reference:-
When instead of applying for leave, if the employee merely sends the certificate by post or through some one, unaccompanied by any application for leave, the management/disciplinary authority is not bound to take notice of that certificate which was not accompanied with an application for leave or extension of leave. Hence, it is mandatory to send a leave application either afresh or for extension alongwith medical certificate in such cases. The authorities are not bound to accept any and every medical certificate as it is also a question of their being satisfied with the said certificate. The authority is empowered to ask the employee concerned to produce the certificate of a government Doctor/Hospital and if he fails to produce so, then it can be said that he is at fault. However, in any case, the medical certificate should be obtained from a registered/authorized medical practitioner."
68. As already observed, in the present case, no application for leave was submitted by workman to management before availing leave or even after leave. Even workman has failed to adduce any evidence that medical record of mother or son were LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 23 of 31 sent to the management.
69. Further, the conduct of workman indicates at his willful neglect of duty and habitual absenteeism since one of justification given by workman that his absence during 2013 was due to kidney stone operation and eye operation of his mother, was found to be false and misleading, as already observed herein-above. Thus, this conduct of the workman clearly establishes that his absence from duty in 2013 was willful and not due to circumstances beyond his control.
70. In this factual scenario, the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in landmark judgment of DTC vs Sardar Singh (2004) 7 SCC 572 are relevant wherein it was held that under Regulations and Standing Order of Delhi Transport Corporation, its employee required to obtain leave in advance and when workman is absent from duty from long period, it prima facie shows lack of interest in work and habitual negligence of duties and relevant extract of the said judgment is re-produced herein:-
"7. In all these cases almost the whole period of absence was without sanctioned leave. Mere making of an application after or even before absence from work does not in any way assist the employee concerned. The requirement is obtaining leave in advance. In all these cases the absence was without obtaining leave in advance. The relevant paras of the Standing Orders read as follows:
(ii) Habitual absence without permission or sanction of leave and any continuous absence without such leave for more than 10 days shall render the employee liable to be treated as an absconder resulting in the termination of his service with the organization.
19. General provisions.--Without prejudice to the LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 24 of 31 provisions of the foregoing Standing Orders, the following acts of commission and omission shall be treated as misconduct:
(a)-(g) ***
(h) Habitual negligence of duties and lack of interest in the authority's work."
8. Clause 15 of the Regulations so far as relevant reads as follows:
"(2) Discipline.--The following penalties may, for misconduct or for a good and sufficient reason be imposed upon an employee of the Delhi Road Transport Authority:
(i)-(v) ***
(vi) Removal from the service of the Delhi Road Transport Authority.
(vii) Dismissal from the service of the Delhi Road Transport Authority.
***"
9. When an employee absents himself from duty, even without sanctioned leave for a very long period, it prima facie shows lack of interest in work. Para 19(h) of the Standing Orders as quoted above, relates to habitual negligence of duties and lack of interest in the authority's work. When an employee absents himself from duty without sanctioned leave, the authority can, on the basis of the record, come to a conclusion about the employee being habitually negligent in duties and an exhibited lack of interest in the employer's work. Ample material was produced before the Tribunal in each case to show as to how the employees concerned were remaining absent for long periods which affects the work of the employer and the employee concerned was required at least to bring some material on record to show as to how his absence was on the basis of sanctioned leave and as to how there was no negligence. Habitual absence is a factor which establishes lack of interest in work. There cannot be any sweeping generalization. But at the same time some telltale features can be noticed and pressed into service to arrive at conclusions in the departmental proceedings."
LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 25 of 31
71. It has been held in several judgments that habitual absenteeism means 'gross violation of discipline' and reliance in this regard is placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in L&T Komatsu Ltd. v. N. Udayakumar (2008) 1 SCC 224, which in turn has relied on Burn & Company Ltd vs Workmen AIR 1959 SC 529, wherein it was held that:-
"5. There should have been an application for leave but Roy thought that he could claim, as a matter of right, leave absence though that might be without permission and though there might not be any application for the same. This was gross violation of discipline. Accordingly, if the Company had placed him under suspension that was in order. On these findings, it seems to us that the Tribunal erred in holding that it could not endorse the Company's decision to dispense with his services altogether. In our opinion, when the Tribunal upheld the order of suspension it erred in directing that Roy must be taken back in his previous post of employment on the pay last drawn by him before the order of suspension."
72. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the workman had failed to justify his unauthorized absence from duty for the period of 225 days during the year 2013 and to meet the criteria laid down in DRCA (Condition of Appointment & Service) Regulation, 1952 and Standing Orders of management.
73. On the basis of foregoing discussions and observations, this Court has come to conclusion that departmental inquiry against workman was conducted by management in accordance with its Statutory Regulations, 1952 and Standing Orders, after affording due and proper opportunity to workman at each stage LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 26 of 31 of inquiry.
74. On the aspect of on the quantum of punishment imposed upon the workman by the management, it has to be seen whether the order dated 05.09.2014 of the management was justified or not, in view of Section 11(A) of ID Act. In this regard, it is relevant to discuss the judicial precedents on this aspect. In the landmark judgment of The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The Management and Others (1973) | SCC 813 , it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"Another change that has been effected by Section 11A is the power conferred on a Tribunal to alter the punishment imposed by an employer. If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the misconduct is established, either by the domestic enquiry accented by it or by the evidence adduced before it for the first time, the Tribunal originally had no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. Once the misconduct is proved, the Tribunal had to sustain the order of punishment unless it was harsh indicating victimisation. Under section 11A, though the Tribunal may hold that the misconduct is proved, nevertheless it may be of the opinion that the order of discharge or dismissal for the said misconduct is not justified. In other words, the Tribunal may hold that the proved misconduct does not merit punishment by way of discharge or dismissal. It can, under such circumstances, award the workman any lesser punishment instead the power to interfere with the punishment instead. The power to interfere with the punishment and alter the same has been now conferred on the Tribunal by section 11A."
75. Although the discretion has been vested in the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under Section 11 (A) of ID Act, yet it LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 27 of 31 is settled principal of law that the discretion has to be exercised judiciously and in accordance with law and reliance in this regard is placed in the judgment of LIC of India vs R. Dhandapani (2006) 13 SCC 613.
76. The discretion vested in Labour Court /Tribunal under Section 11-A ID Act is to be exercised on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to shock the conscience of the Court, the existence of any mitigating circumstances, or the past conduct of the workman and it has been settled law that Labour Court cannot reduce the punishment merely by way of sympathy or compassion alone as held by Hon'ble Suprme Court of India in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v N.B. Narawade, (2005(3) SCC
134) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:-
"It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management where the workman concerned is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred to hereinabove and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11- A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such factor existing, the Labour Court cannot by way of LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 28 of 31 sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11-A of the Act and reduce the punishment."
77. It has been further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in LIC of India vs R. Dhandapani (2006) 13 SCC 613 that where there is pattern of defiance and proved misconduct, interference by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is not warranted and the relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced herein:-
'Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts are not forums whose task is to dole out private benevolence to workmen found by the Labour Court/Tribunal to be guilty of misconduct. The Tribunal and the High Court, in this case, have found a pattern of defiance and proved misconduct on not one but on several occasions. The compassion which was shown by the Tribunal and unfortunately endorsed by the learned Single Judge was fully misplaced."
78. In the case at hand, during tenure of service of workman from 1983, there were several adverse entries in his service record, out of which 9 of them pertained to his unauthorized absence from duty. The service record of the workman (exhibited as Ex. MW1/3 (colly)) shows that he had, on multiple occasions, availed excessive leave and was absent from duty without intimation, which had led to punishment /penalty being imposed on the workman. The relevant parts of the service record of the workman are reproduced herein for perusal:-
Sr. Authority's Order Cause Nature of
No. Punishment
01 NND/AI(T)ST/SP/ Cause of accident of bus No. 8621on WARNING
Acc-483/89 04.09.89
Date-05.10.89
02. YVT/AI(T)/94/st/113 1. Absent from duty WARNING
date 05.08.1994 2. Obstruction of bus out shedding LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 29 of 31 03 YVD/AI(T)ST/240/97 June 96 to December 96 ( 54 days) 'Censured' date 16.06.1997 absent from his duty unauthorized 04 YVD/AI(T)/ From January 98 to June 98 (54 Days) Stoppage of next CS-76/98 /2030/2030 absent from his duty unauthorized two due increment date 21.12.1998 without cumulative effect.
05. SMPD/AI(T) June Absent for 23 days during the period Next due one 66/04/197 date from 01.01.2003 to 03.09.2003 increment stopped 05.03.2004 without cumulative effect.
06. SMPD/AI(T)/ Absent from his duty on 27.10.2003 Censured 53/04/248 date financial loss to DTC 04.04.2005
07. SMPD/AI(T)/04/59 One next due increment stopped is Stoppage of one date 04.04.2005 hereby confirmed. Unauthorized absent next due increment from his duty for 29 days during the without cumulative period from 01.01.2004 to 31.08.2004 effect.
08. SMPD/AI(T)/ Absent from his duty without prior Stoppage of one Jan.78/07/498 date intimation for 63 days during the next due increment 18.05.2007 period from 01.01.2006 to 30.09.206 without cumulative effect.
09. SMPD/AI(T)/ Punishment is confirmed. Stoppage of one Jan.33/091/10/425 Continuously absent from his duty next due increment date 09.06.2010 without prior intimation from without cumulative 14.10.2009 to 03.11.2009 effect.
10. YVD/AI(T)/ Next due one increment stop with 'One increment CS-50/11/12/2649 date cumulative effect stopped' 08.08.2012
11. YVD/ Reduction of his pay scale to initial Reduction of his AI(T)CS-12/13/3074 stage of basic pay for one year. pay scale to initial date 31.10.2013 Absent for 175 days from January stage of basic pay 2012 to December 2012 for one year.
79. The relevant entries from service record (Ex. WW1/M3) of workman, reproduced herein-above shows several absences from duty of the workman for period extending upto 2 to 4 months at a time and also shows that the management /DTC had, on multiple occasions, passed Disciplinary Orders and meted out the punishment of stoppage of his increments and even downgraded his basic pay, but despite the penalties imposed by the management, workman had exhibited pattern of willful defiance as his unauthorized absence from duty had continued even thereafter, not for few days but for long period.
80. In fact, it shows that workman was habituated to long LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 30 of 31 absences from beginning itself as his service record shows that he had been unauthorizedly absent from duty for 23 days in 2003, 29 days in 2004, 63 days in 2006, 175 days in 2012, for which he was penalized. Thus, the conduct of workman indicates at his failure to mend his ways, despite warning and imposition of penalty by management, which shows lack of devotion towards his duty and thus does not warrant any interference with punishment imposed on him by management.
81. In view of foregoing discussions and observations, this Court holds that inquiry conducted by management against the workman was fair, valid, proper and in accordance with principal of natural justice and the punishment of 'dismissal from service' imposed on workman by management, also does not warrant any interference by this Court, for reasons mentioned herein-above.
82. With these observations, the preliminary issue is decided against the workman and in favour of the management.
83. Accordingly, statement of claim of the workman stands dismissed.
84. Award has been passed and Reference is answered accordingly.
85. The Award be also uploaded on server.
86. Judicial file be consigned to Record Room after compliance of necessary legal formalities.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court RITU by RITU SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.02.05 On 05th February 2026 16:55:50 +0530 (RITU SINGH) District Judge, POLC-IV/RADC, New Delhi LIR No.1201/2019 Ashwani Kumar Vs. DTC Page No. 31 of 31