Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of DTC Employee for Frequent Unauthorized Absence, Declares It Willful Misconduct and Rejects Labour Court’s Leniency

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court set aside the Labour Court’s award, which had modified the punishment of dismissal for unauthorized absence to compulsory retirement. The High Court upheld the termination order issued by Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) and clarified that leniency based on compassionate grounds cannot justify interference with disciplinary actions when misconduct is established.

Facts:

1. Employment History: The employee joined DTC in 1983 as a Retainer Crew Driver, became a permanent employee in 1985, and worked for 24 years until his termination in 2007.
2. Allegations and Termination:
   • The employee was absent from work without authorization from January to May 2007.
   • Disciplinary proceedings led to an inquiry that found the absence unjustified and recommended termination, implemented on October 16, 2007.
3. Challenge Before Labour Court:
   • The Labour Court, while agreeing that the inquiry followed principles of natural justice, found the punishment “slightly disproportionate” to the misconduct.
   • The Court modified the dismissal to compulsory retirement, granting retiral and consequential benefits, citing the employee’s long tenure and health issues.

Issues:

1. Was the disciplinary inquiry conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice?
2. Was the punishment of dismissal disproportionate to the misconduct?

Petitioner’s Arguments (DTC):

• Frequent Unauthorized Absences:
  • The employee had a documented history of repeated unauthorized absences over 24 years, including eight adverse entries in his service record.
  • Previous penalties included stoppage of increments, reduction in pay grade, and warnings.
• Compassionate Grounds Invalid:
  • Leniency cannot override established disciplinary principles, as held by the Supreme Court in Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. and L&T Komatsu Ltd.
• Proportionate Punishment:
  • Termination for unauthorized absence is proportionate, and interference by the Labour Court was arbitrary and unjustified.

Respondent’s Arguments (Employee):

• Health and Personal Challenges:
  • Claimed absences were due to his illness and his wife’s ill health.
  • Submitted leave applications with medical certificates during the inquiry.
• Punishment Disproportionate:
  • Argued that 24 years of service and mitigating circumstances warranted a lesser penalty.
• Reliance on Precedents:
  • Cited Krushnakant B. Parmar, arguing that absence due to compelling circumstances, such as illness, does not constitute willful misconduct.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Fairness of Inquiry:
   • The inquiry adhered to principles of natural justice. The employee was present, had the opportunity to defend himself, and admitted to the charges during the inquiry.
   • The Labour Court’s findings upheld the inquiry process as fair and proper.
2. Unauthorized Absence and Misconduct:
   • Absences were frequent, long-term, and without proper authorization, indicating willful neglect of duty.
   • The employee’s leave applications lacked consistency and did not substantiate his claims of compelling circumstances.
3. Misplaced Compassion:
   • The Labour Court’s decision to modify the punishment based on compassion contradicted legal principles. The Supreme Court in Bharat Forge held that disciplinary authorities cannot reduce punishment merely on compassionate grounds unless it is shockingly disproportionate.

Precedent Analysis:

• Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate:
  • Courts cannot interfere with punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate or based on illegality.
• L&T Komatsu Ltd. v. N. Udayakumar:
  • Dismissal for habitual absenteeism upheld as proportionate, emphasizing that leniency undermines workplace discipline.
• Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India:
  • Absence due to illness or other uncontrollable circumstances does not amount to misconduct. However, this case was distinguished as the employee’s absences were willful, not due to compelling circumstances.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Employee’s Record of Absence:
   • The employee was absent for over 500 days between 2004 and 2007, including 100 days in 2007 alone.
   • Repeated penalties for similar misconduct showed a habitual disregard for workplace discipline.
2. Leave Applications Insufficient:
   • Applications cited personal illness but did not support claims of his wife’s illness, contradicting his arguments before the Labour Court.
   • Applications were often submitted after the absence, indicating a lack of authorization.
3. Disproportionate Punishment Claim Rejected:
   • The Labour Court acknowledged the misconduct but erred in reducing the punishment based on tenure and health issues.
   • The High Court held that leniency must be exercised judiciously, and in this case, dismissal was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

Conclusion:

The High Court reversed the Labour Court’s decision, reinstating the termination order. It emphasized that willful unauthorized absence undermines workplace discipline and warrants strict action. The Court noted that leniency must be backed by evidence of mitigating circumstances, which were absent in this case.

Implications:

This judgment reinforces the principle that disciplinary actions must align with workplace policies and legal standards. It discourages arbitrary interference by courts based on compassion, thereby upholding the sanctity of workplace discipline and ensuring consistency in labor jurisprudence.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Appoints Independent Arbitrator, Invalidates Unilateral Appointment Clause: Emphasizes Neutrality and Fairness in Arbitration Under Perkins Eastman Principles