The Tribunal directed the re-reinstatement of the conductor with continuity of service and full back wages, noting that he had been unemployed since the date of termination.
The Delhi High Court has directed the DTC to give the salary of 17 years with revisions to a bus conductor. Earlier, the conductor had been removed from service at the instance of an apparently disgruntled co-worker, on the grounds that the institution from which he had obtained his matriculation was not one whose certificates were recognised for employment with the Centre.
While passing the order, Justice C Hari Shankar observed, "Removal of a low paid employee, such as a conductor, from service, has far-reaching consequences. It amounts to a civil death.
It eviscerates not only the livelihood of the employee concerned but has the perilous potentiality of wiping out his entire family, and all others dependent on him for substance".
Chander Singh was a retainer crew conductor employed with the DTC on February 11, 1981. Consequent upon the completion of probation, his services were confirmed on August 10, 1982. However, a couple of years later, one Ram Singh, another employee, informed the DTC that Chander was not a matriculate even though he had given documents pertaining to his qualification.
Following an inquiry conducted against him, Chander was removed from service. This removal was challenged by the conductor in a labour court which termed the order of removal as "illegal" and "unjustified."
The Tribunal directed the re-reinstatement of the conductor with continuity of service and full back wages, noting that he had been unemployed since the date of termination.
This order was challenged by the DTC in the High Court stating that the conductor was guilty of cheating, fraud and misconduct.
The court mentioned that the conductor had not contested the proceedings and there was no clue as to whether he was dead or alive.
"I do not know whether he is alive, or dead and neither does the petitioner (DTC). Whether this order would, in the ultimate eventuate, have any meaning, for anyone, is a moot question. Are we, at the end of it all, serving the cause of justice?", the court asked.
Justice Hari Shankar also said, "the removal of the conductor from service betrays an indifference to the consequences of such an action which is pathetic as well as apathetic".
"I, therefore, entirely concur with the learned Tribunal in holding that the removal of the petitioner from service was illegal and unjustified," the court said in its order.
The court also rapped the DTC stating the "though the facts of the present case would warrant the imposition of heavy costs on the petitioner (DTC), I reluctantly refrain from doing so, as there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent."
Justice Hari Shankar noted that reinstatement after such a long time would serve no purpose. He thereby directed the DTC to make all efforts to trace the conductor and disburse, "the quantum of wages, which he would have earned, had he continued in service till superannuation..."
"This would also include any increments, enhancement on account of pay revisions, etc. to which the Singh would have become entitled from time to time," he added.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Delhi High Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}