Conductor Denied Right to Defense Assistance, Inquiry Officer Failed to Inform of Co-Worker Representation: High Court Reinstate Conductor
The High Court of Delhi has dismissed the petition filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) challenging the reinstatement of a conductor, Ram Avtar Sharma, who was previously terminated for misconduct. The court upheld the Labour Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing that the inquiry conducted by DTC violated principles of natural justice, thus warranting the workman’s reinstatement without back wages.
The court underscored significant procedural lapses during the disciplinary inquiry against the conductor. “The enquiry was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice,” Justice Chandra Dhari Singh remarked. The conductor was not provided crucial documents, such as the driver’s memo and the log book, and was only allowed to inspect passenger statements, which impeded his ability to mount an effective defense.
The court noted that the enquiry officer failed to inform the respondent of his right to be assisted by a co-worker. “Such an opportunity is not given to him,” the judgment stated, highlighting that the respondent was unfairly denied the chance to be represented adequately during the proceedings.
The court scrutinized the evidence presented, observing inconsistencies in the passenger statements and the absence of signatures on unpunched tickets to prove they were voluntarily surrendered by the respondent. “The statement of the passengers did not mention the exact starting point and destination, as well as the amount paid,” Justice Singh pointed out, which cast doubt on the authenticity of the evidence against the conductor.
The High Court concurred with the Tribunal’s finding that the DTC’s failure to provide the necessary documents to the respondent violated natural justice principles. “The non-supply of the log book and absence of proper documents to prove that the petitioner was allowed to inspect the documents considered during the inquiry proceedings, vitiated the enquiry proceedings,” the court concluded.
Justice Singh emphasized the importance of fair procedures, stating, “The enquiry officer has not explained that the respondent is entitled to a co-worker as a defense assistant. Such an opportunity is not given to him, which violates the principles of natural justice.”
The High Court’s decision to uphold the Labour Tribunal’s ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fair treatment in employment disputes. By affirming the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles, the judgment sends a clear message about the importance of procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries. This landmark decision is expected to have significant implications for future employment-related cases, particularly in ensuring that procedural lapses do not undermine the rights of employees.
Date of Decision: May 14, 2024
Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Ram Avtar Sharma
