Treating unauthorized absence as leave without pay does not absolve employee of misconduct.

The deceased employee, Pyare Lal, was a driver for the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC)

Between 1979 and 1991, he was repeatedly cautioned for unauthorized absences and once penalized with the stoppage of a salary increment

In February 1993, he was charge-sheeted for being absent without permission for 22 days

Despite multiple notices, he failed to join the domestic enquiry, which subsequently proved the charges

He was removed from service on April 27, 1993

The DTC filed an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that since the absence was treated as "leave without pay," it did not constitute misconduct

A learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, which led to this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) by the employee's legal representatives

1. Whether treating a period of unauthorized absence as "leave without pay" for administrative record-keeping absolves an employee of the charge of misconduct

2. Whether the absence of specific dates in the charge sheet rendered the charges vague, thereby vitiating the disciplinary proceedings

Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the approval of a workman's discharge or dismissal during pending proceedings

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Harihar Gopal (1969) and Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh (2004), which established that treating unauthorized absence as "leave without pay" is a mere accounting necessity to maintain service records and does not retrospectively authorize the absence or negate the underlying misconduct

The principle that charges are not "vague" if the employee has sufficient notice of the case against him, supported by a detailed leave statement

The Court observed that the Industrial Tribunal’s reasoning—that "leave without pay" regularized the conduct—was fundamentally flawed and contrary to established law

Citing Sardar Singh, the Court clarified that "treating as leave without pay is not the same as sanctioned or approved leave"

The Court found that the regularization was merely for the purpose of maintaining a correct record of service and did not obliterate the dismissal order

Regarding the vagueness of charges, the Court noted that while specific dates were not in the charge sheet itself, a leave statement was placed on record during the trial, providing the employee with sufficient notice of the allegations

Since the employee failed to participate in the inquiry despite multiple opportunities, the principles of natural justice were deemed satisfied

It held that unauthorized absence remains a misconduct even if the employer treats the period as "leave without pay" for administrative purposes

The Court answered the issues in the negative, confirming that the charges were not vague and the approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was justified

The final order set aside the Tribunal's decision and approved the employee's removal from service