DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two separate writ petitions filed by the petitioner Delhi Transport Corporation under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 03.08.2000 of the Ld. Industrial Tribunal-II, Delhi in O.P. No. 90/91, where by the Hon'ble Tribunal rejected the approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of I.D. Act of the petitioner, and also for setting aside the award dated 26.07.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, in I.D. No. 327/2001 directing reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent/workman was appointed by the petitioner management on the post of driver as Daily Wager w.e.f. 19.06.1981 and his services were confirmed as driver on 19.12.1981. The services of the respondent workman were terminatedon08.11.1991 on the ground that respondent/workman while performing his duties as driver with bus No. 6424 on route from Delhi to Chandigarh was found by the checking officials to be driving the vehicle with lights inside the buss witched off and was also to have alighted three passengers without ticket. The respondent workman also misbehaved with the checking officials and had also refused to hand over the driver memo and to accept the Challan. As per the petitioner DTC, the respondent committed mis-conduct within the meaning of para 18 (h) and (m) of the standing orders governing the conduct of the DTC employees. An enquiry was conducted into the said mis-conduct of the respondent and the enquiry officer found him guilty. Based on the enquiry report, show cause notice dated 26.09.1991 was issued to the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority and after finding the reply submitted by the respondent workman to be not satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority vide orders dated 8.11.1991 directed the removal of the respondent from his service. After taking the said decision, the petitioner DTC had filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act to seek approval of their decision which was dismissed vide order dated 3.8.2000. On the other hand the respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act challenging the said action of removal by the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.