LexDELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus D.T.C. MAZDOOR CONGRESS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. D.T.C. MAZDOORCONGRESS SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ., B.C. RAY, LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, P.B. SAWANT AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] Service Law: Delhi Road Transport Act, 1950: Section 53/Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952-Regulation 9(b )/Shastri Award-Para 522/ District Board Rules, 1926, Part V-Rule 1(1)/Indian Airlines Employees' Regulations-Regulation JJ/Air India Employees' Regulations-Re- gulation 48-Validity of-Termination of service of permanent emp- loyee without assigning any reasons and holding enquiry-Whether arbitrary, unfair, unjust, unreasonable and opposed to public policy- Whether violative of Articles 12, 14, 16, 19, 31 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India, principles of natural justice arrd Section 23 of Contract Act, 1872-Statutory corporations-Power to terminate ser- vices of employees without holding enquiry-Validity of. Contract Act, 1872: Section 23-Contract providing for termina- tion of service without notice and holding of enquiry-Whether enforceable. Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 16, 19( l) (g), 21 and 3l1(2)-Termination of service of an employee without assigning reasons and holding enquiry-Whether violative of Fundamental Rights and principles of natural justice-Regulations/Rules-Validity of. Article 141: Expressions "declared" and "found or made"-Scope and ambit of. ' Interpretation of Statutes: Internal aid to construction-Doctrine of reading down-Scope and Applicability of-Provision illegal and G invalid-Whether could be validated by reading down-Where provi- sion clear and unambiguous-Whether permissible to read down into the provision something which was not intended. Public Policy vis-a-vis constitutionality of statute-Whether public policy can. be drawn from the Constitution-Whether constitutional \... H policy provides an aid-Role and purpose of constitutional interpreta- tion by apex i:ourt. 142 D.T.C. v. D.T.C. MAZDOOR CONGRESS 143 Administrative Law-Discretionary power-Exercise of-Limi- tations-Absence of arbitrary power-Fi;st essential of Rule of Law. Respondents No. 2 to 4, regular employees of the appellant Delhi Transpori Corporation, were served with termination notices under Regulation 9(b) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 by the appellant Corpora- tion on the ground that they became inefficient in their work and started inciting other members not to perform their duties. The three respondents and their Union, respondent No. 1 filed writ petition in High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of Regulation 9(b), which gave the management right to terminate the services of an employee by giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. The Division Bench of the High Court struck down the Regula- tion, holding that the Regulation gave absolute, unbridled and arbi- trary powers to the management to terminate the .services of any per- manent or temporary employee, and •uch power was violative of Article 14 of the Constituiion. Hence, the Corporation filed ihe appeal before this Court, by special leave. The validity of similar provmons in Para 522 of the Shastri Award, rule l(i) of the District Board Rules 1926, Part V, Regulation 13 of Indian Airlines Employees' Service Regulations, Regulation 48 of Air India Employees' Service Regulations and also the clause in the con- tract of appointment in -respect of employees of Zilla Parishad and the New India Assurance Co1npany) also came up f~r consideration in the connected appeals and applications filed before this Court. It was contended on behalf of the Delhi Transport Corporation A B c b E that there was sufficient guideline in Regulation 9(b) and the power of F termination, properly read, would not be arbitrary or violative of Arti- cle 14 of the Constitution, that the Court would be entitled to obtain guidance from the preamble, the policy and the purpose of the Act and the power conferred under it and to see that the power was exercised only for that purpose, that even a term like 'public interest' could be sufficient guidance in the matter of retirement of a government G employee, and such a provision could be read into a statute even when it was not otherwise expressly there, that it was well-settled that the Court would sustain the presumption of constitutionality
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.