The Delhi High Court has declined to intervene in the reinstatement order of a deceased DTC bus conductor who was terminated from service in 1991 due to unauthorized absence for 15 days.
The court deemed the punishment of removal as “shockingly disproportionate” and noted that even if the matter were reconsidered for the quantum of penalty, it would serve no purpose as the conductor was no longer alive.
A bench comprising former Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the appeal by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), challenging a single-judge order that upheld a 2003 labor court award directing the conductor’s reinstatement with back wages.
The deceased employee faced removal from service in January 1992 after an inquiry was initiated against him by the DTC. He filed a case against his dismissal under industrial disputes law, but he passed away during the legal proceedings.
The bench observed that during the inquiry, only one witness was examined, and the inquiry officer disbelieved the conductor’s statement that he was compelled to take a 15-day leave due to illness, and his leave application was sent through his brother. The court further noted that the medical certificates were ignored only because the treatment was in a private hospital, and the fact-finding by the Labor Court was not perverse.
The court stated, “Not only this, in the considered opinion of this Court, for an absence of 15 days, the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate, and therefore, on this count alone, the workman was entitled to relief.”
It emphasized the unfortunate aspect of the case, highlighting that the workman is no longer alive. Even if the matter were remanded back to the Labor Court on the point of quantum of punishment, it would serve no purpose as the workman is deceased.
The court was informed that the DTC has paid all the terminal dues to the deceased conductor’s wife and legal heirs and implemented the award of reinstatement. Consequently, the court found no reason to interfere with the Labor Court’s award and the single-judge order, given the circumstances. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
