Unauthorised absence from duty justifies finding of misconduct, but removal after decade of service is disproportionately harsh.

The Petitioner, a conductor appointed by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) in 1982, was removed from service on 13.12.1991 following a departmental inquiry.

The charges related to his unauthorized absence for 119 days during the year 1989.

The Respondent filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, which was allowed by the Industrial Tribunal on 25.02.2005.

Subsequently, a Labour Court award dated 25.07.2007 upheld the dismissal, finding the misconduct serious and the punishment proportionate.

The Petitioner challenged both orders, claiming his absence was due to acute knee pain and that he had submitted medical certificates.

1. Whether the findings of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court regarding the Petitioner’s unauthorized absence were perverse or lacked evidence.

2. Whether the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. Whether the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

The Court applied the principles of judicial review under Article 226, specifically the limited scope of the writ of certiorari, as established in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, which restricts a High Court from acting as an Appellate Court or reweighing evidence.

Regarding industrial law, the Court applied Section 33(2)(b) and Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, emphasizing that an employee cannot presume leave is granted merely by submitting an application and that unauthorized absence for prolonged periods constitutes misconduct.

The Court also applied the "Doctrine of Proportionality" to assess if the penalty was shockingly disproportionate to the offense.

The Court observed that the Petitioner admitted to being absent for 119 days and failed to produce witnesses (such as his colleague) to prove the timely submission of leave applications.

It was determined that merely submitting an application does not entitle an employee to leave unless sanctioned by the employer.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's claim of procedural unfairness in the inquiry, noting that he had signed the inquiry proceedings and received the chargesheet.

While the misconduct was proved, the Court found the penalty of removal "harsh" because the absence was sporadic rather than continuous, the Petitioner had served for a decade, and he had previously been penalized for similar conduct, which suggested a lesser penalty might suffice.

Due to the significant lapse of time (over 30 years), reinstatement was deemed impractical.

The Court modified the relief, refusing reinstatement but awarding a one-time lump sum compensation of ₹4,00,000/- to be paid by the Respondent within three weeks; the writ petitions were disposed of with these directions.