DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner DTC by this writ petition impugns the dismissal by the Industrial Tribunal of its application under Section 33 (2)(b) of the ID Act seeking approval of its action/order dated 6th July, 1993 of dismissal of the deceased workman Shri Mohan Lal whose legal heirs are now the respondent no.1. The workman Shri Mohan Lal died on 24th December, 1998 during the pendency of the application under Section 33(2)(b) before the Industrial Tribunal and his legal heirs were substituted in his place. The Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 7th August, 2002 on the preliminary issue framed as to the validity of the domestic inquiry preceding the order of termination of service, held the domestic inquiry to be vitiated for the reason of the petitioner DTC, though having placed the record of the domestic inquiry before the Industrial Tribunal but in proof of the same having examined only the clerk/typist of the Inquiry Officer and not the Inquiry Officer himself. The petitioner DTC sought an opportunity to prove the misconduct alleged against the workman before the Industrial Tribunal. However, the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 3rd March, 2003 dismissed the application for the reason of, the workman having been charged with, while working as Conductor with the petitioner DTC, reselling of tickets and found short of cash during a check carried out by the checking team of the petitioner DTC and further with having refused to sign the challan and causing hindrance in the work of the checking officials, the petitioner DTC having not examined any of the passenger witnesses who are/were alleged to have complained against the workman.

(2.) Aggrieved from the aforesaid dismissal of its application under Section 33(2)(b), the present writ petition was filed. This Court vide ex parte order dated 22nd October, 2003, while issuing notice of the petition stayed the operation of the aforesaid orders.

(3.) The application under Section 33(2)(b) was necessitated not because of any earlier dispute between the petitioner DTC and the workman aforesaid but owing to the then pendency of a general dispute between the petitioner DTC and its employees/workmen.