DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus SARDAR SINGH

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 12-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
v. 
SARDAR SINGH 
AUGUST 12, 2004 
B 
(S.N. VARIAVA AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Labour Laws : 
C 
Delhi Road Transport Authhority (Conditions of Appointment and 
Service) Regulations, 1952: Regulation 15(1). 
Paragraphs 4(i), (ii) and J<;(h)-Absence without leave-Habitual 
long absence without sanctioned /eave-Effect of-Held: Such long ab-
sence amounted to negligence and/or lack of interest in employer's work-
D However, burden is on the employee to prove otherwise by placing relevant 
materials. 
Leave-Absence without leave-Employer treated unauthorized ab-
sence of employee as leave without pay-Effect of-Held: Such treatment 
E is not the same as sanctioned or approved leave and does not render such 
absence as authorized-This is done only for the purpose of maintaining 
correct record of Jervice. 
industrial Disputes Act, 194 7: 
F 
Section 33(2)(b)-Dismissal/removal from service-Approval of Tri-
bunal-Certain employees were dismissed/removed from serVice due to 
long unauthorized absence from duty which amounted to a misconduct 
under the relevant Standing Orders of the employer-Ample material was 
placed by the employer before the Tribunal to establish its case-
G Employees failed to establish otherwise-But Tribunal refused to grant 
approval on the ground that the said unauthorized absence was treated as 
leave without pay-Correctness of-Held: The Tribunal was not justified 
in refusing to grant approval-Such absence was unauthorized-Treating 
unauthorized absence as leave without pay was for the purpose of 
H maintaining correct record of service. 
494 
D.T.C. v. SARDAR SINGH 
495 
The respondent was working as a conductor with the appellant- A 
Corporation. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the 
respondent on the ground of misconduct due to unauthorized long 
absence from duty; negligence of duties and lack of interest in the 
employer's work in terms of Paragraphs 4(i) & (ii) and 19(h) of the 
Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and B 
Service) Regulations, 1952. After finding the respondent guilty, the 
Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissaVremoval 
from service on the respondent. Since an industrial dispute was already 
pending, approval for the order of dismissaVremoval from service was 
sought for in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, C 
1947. The Tribunal found that the appellant-Corporation had treated 
the absence from duty as leave without.pay. The Tribunal, therefore, 
held that availing leave without pay-did not amount to misconduct and 
refused to grant the said approval. The High Court upheld the decision 
of the Tribunal. Hence the appeal. 
D 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the Standing 
Order framed under Regulation 15(1) of the Regulations clearly 
stipulated that leave was to be obtained in advance; that treating 
absence from duty as leave without pay was nothing but maintaining 
correct record of service; and that it did not amount to sanction of E 
leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Where an employee absents himself from duty, even 
without sanctioned leave for a very long period, it prima facie shows F 
lack of interest in work. Paragraph 19(h) of the Standing Order issued 
under Regulation 15(1) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Con-
ditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 relates to 
habitual negligence of duties and lack of interest in the appella:tt-
Corporation 's work. When an employee absents himself from duty 
without sanctioned leave the Corporation can, on the basis of the G 
record, come to a conclusion about the employee being habitually 
negligent in duties and exhibited lack of interest in the employer's 
work. [500-D-E) 
1.2. Ample material was produced before the Tribunal to show as H 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A to how the respondent was remaining absent for long periods which 
affected the work of the employer and the respondent was required at 
least to bring some material on record to show as to how his absence was 
on the basis of sanctioned leave and as to how there was no negligence. 
Habitual absence is a factor which establishes lack of interest in work. 
B There cannot be any sweeping generalization. But at the same time 
some telltale features can be noticed and pressed into service to arrive 
at conclusions in the departmental proceedings. [500-E-G) 
2.1. Even "hen an order is

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.