DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SATYAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.(C) No.6474/2004 impugns the order dated 31st March, 2003 of the Industrial Tribunal dismissing the application of the petitioner DTC under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act seeking approval of its action of dismissal from employment of the respondent employee employed as Conductor with the petitioner DTC. It is the case of the petitioner DTC that on 7th February, 1993 the bus of the respondent workman was checked by the checking officials and in the said checking it was found that a group of seven passengers were given tickets of lesser amount inspite of collection by the respondent workman of full fare from them; upon being confronted the respondent workman admitted his fault and issued un-punched tickets and the amount of cash on him was also not found proper and adequate; since the same constitutes a misconduct under the Standing Orders of DTC after inquiry finding respondent workman guilty, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner DTC after inquiry finding the respondent workman guilty, vide order dated 27th July, 1993 removed the respondent workman from the service and remitted one months wages to him by way of Money Order. Owing to the pendency then of a general dispute between the petitioner DTC and its employees, the approval of such dismissal was sought by filing an application under Section 33(2)(b) supra.

(2.) The Industrial Tribunal in the said proceedings framed a preliminary issue as to whether a legal and valid inquiry had been conducted according to the principles of natural justice.

(3.) The Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 25th October, 2002 decided the said preliminary issue against the petitioner DTC. It was held that the Inquiry Officer did not examine any passenger witnesses and the copy of the statement of the passengers alleged to have been received by post was also not supplied to the respondent workman. It was therefore held that in the absence of primary evidence of the passenger witnesses there was no reliable material before the Inquiry Officer to reach the conclusion that the passengers actually paid the full money to the respondent workman and he did not issue the tickets of correct amount. The report of the Inquiry Officer was thus held to be perverse.