DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RAJBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner DTC seeks writ of certiorari with respect to the orders dated 10th May, 2000 and 6th August, 2002 of the Industrial Tribunal on an application of the petitioner DTC under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 10th May, 2000 held that the petitioner had not held a legal and valid enquiry before removing the respondent No. 1 workman from its employment and thereafter proceeded to examine itself whether any case for dismissal of the respondent No. 1 workman from employment was made out and vide order dated 6th August, 2002 finding no case for dismissal of the respondent No. 1 workman to have been made out, declined the approval sought by the petitioner for removal of the respondent No. 1 workman from its employment.

(2.) This Court vide ex parte order dated 4th August, 2003 stayed the operation of the orders impugned in the petition. When the matter came up for hearing first on 15th February, 2010, it was enquired from the counsel for the parties as to whether the respondent No. 1 workman had raised any industrial dispute qua termination of his employment by the petitioner DTC. The answer was in the negative. It was in the circumstances enquired from the counsels as to what occasioned the filing of the application by the petitioner DTC under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The counsels were unable to reply and the proceedings were adjourned to enable them to take instructions. On the subsequent date, it was informed that at the contemporaneous time an industrial dispute between the DTC and its workers in general as to certain pensionary benefits was pending and pendency whereof had necessitated the filing of the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, even though the industrial dispute qua pensionary benefits since stands resolved. Be that as it may, the termination by the petitioner of the services of the respondent No. 1 workman being during the pendency of an industrial dispute, this writ petition by the petitioner DTC challenging the dismissal of its application shall survive the resolution of the industrial dispute which had necessitated the filing of the application.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 workman was employed as a Driver with the petitioner DTC. He was charged with misconduct within the meaning of Para 19(b)(f) & (h) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of DTC employees and an enquiry was ordered and held. It was the case of the petitioner DTC that on 1st June, 1992, the respondent No. 1 workman while discharging his duty on Bus No. 8797 on Route No. 260/261 was found by Sh. Sohan Lal, Traffic Supervisor of the DTC and his staff at about 10:30 at Nehru Vihar, it was found that respondent No. 1 workman had not displayed the route board on the bus and was found with the bus at Nehru Vihar which was not on his route. The respondent No. 1 told the Traffic Supervisor that it was a case of breakdown of the bus. However, the respondent No. 1 workman was alleged to have not reported breakdown to any of the control rooms of the petitioner DTC. The enquiry officer found the respondent No. 1 workman guilty of the charge and the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner DTC imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent No. 1 workman and approval of such dismissal was sought from the Industrial Tribunal by moving an application under Section 33(2)(b) (supra).