Shri Bharat Bhushan v. M/S. Delhi Transport Corporation

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 25th October, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 1771/2008 whereby the appellant-petitioner’s writ petition has been dismissed.

2. Mr. Ram Sewak, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submitted that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge had erred in reaching the conclusion that the appellant-petitioner was a 2010:DHC:6113-DB

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appellant-petitioner was fully aware of his past record and if he wanted a copy of the same, he could have applied for the same.

4. In fact, we find that the Labour Court has noticed that after issuance of the show cause notice dated 23rd March, 1993, the appellant-petitioner had moved an application dated 06th April, 1993 before the Deputy Manager, asking for supply of a number of documents, but he nowhere asked for copies of his past record. Consequently, in our opinion, the appellant-petitioner has not made out any case of prejudice caused to him in the absence of non-supply of past record.

5. In the present case, we also find that the appellant-petitioner was habitually negligent in his duties and exhibited lack of interest in his work. The Supreme Court in DTC vs. Sardar Singh, 2004 SCC (L&S) 946 has held that habitual absence is a factor which establishes lack of interest in work and telltale features can be noticed and pressed into service to arrive at conclusions in the departmental proceedings.

6. In the present case, the Labour Court in its award has noted the following facts:- “His past record has as many as 12 adverse entries out of which 7 entries are in respect of absence from duty without information. He absented from duty w.e.f. 11.10.87 to 23.10.87 without any information for which he was warned. He was absent from duties w.e.f. 9.2.88 to 3.4.88 without information for which he was reprimanded. He again absented from duty without information from 26.2.89 to 5.4.89 for which he was the period from 1.1.89 to 31.8.89 for which punishment of stoppage of next due increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon him. He also absented from duties from 17.7.88 to 10.8.88 for which punishment of stoppage of next due two increments was imposed. He again absented from duty from 10.10.90 to 29.10.90 for which he was warned. He availed excess leave without pay for the year 88, 89, 90 for which punishment of stoppage of next due one increment with cumulative effect was imposed. As there were a number of adverse entries, it cannot be said that it was not in the knowledge of the workman and he was prejudiced due to non supply of past record.”

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of merit. Consequently, the same is dismissed but with no order as to costs. MANMOHAN, J CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 16, 2010 js