CHANDER PAL Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of award dated 13.4.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No- III in I.D. No. 124/02, whereby reference was answered against the workman by upholding the punishment awarded to him and also quashing of the order of removal dated 4.6.1992 passed by the respondent Corporation.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case as per the petitioner relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was employed as a Conductor with the respondent, Delhi Transport Corporation. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 24.9.1991 alleging that the petitioner had not issued tickets to the passengers after collecting due fare from them. It was alleged that his cash was found to be in excess by Rs. 7.50 and that he was found sitting on some other seat. An enquiry was initiated in the matter and the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of misconduct. The respondent thereafter proceeded to pass an order of removal dated 4.6.1992 against the petitioner workman. Simultaneously, the respondent corporation filed an application under Section 33(2) (b) of the I.D. Act seeking approval of its decision for removal of the petitioner from service and the learned Tribunal proceeded to grant approval to the application filed by the respondent corporation vide its order dated 28.2.2001. Aggrieved with the said order the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court in which it was held that proper and fair enquiry was held by the respondent Corporation and passed an award dated 13.4.2004 upholding the order of removal dated 4.6.1992.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly observed that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner to raise the industrial dispute after a lapse of about 10 years from the date of removal of the petitioner. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors., 2002 2 SCC 244. He further contended that the petitioner had raised the industrial dispute after the approval was granted to the order of removal by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2) (b) of the I.D. Act vide order dated 28.2.2001. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Industrial Tribunal also erred in holding that the charges leveled in the charge sheet against the workman stands proved, as no evidence was produced on record by the respondent to prove the charge of misconduct against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the principles of natural justice were blatantly violated by the enquiry officer as the petitioner was not supplied with the requisite documents as asked by him and also the assistance of a co-worker was not provided to him, besides non-examination of the passengers as witnesses. Counsel further submitted that even the statement of the driver of the bus, Shri Jugwinder Singh, was ignored by the enquiry officer, who, in his deposition clearly stated that there were 8-10 passengers in the bus when the bus was checked by the checking officials and no passenger was found without a ticket. Based on the above submissions, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings of the Tribunal are illegal and unwarranted besides being perverse.