RAM KISHAN Vs. NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (1) According to the petitioner, he was employed in Delhi Transport Corporation (Respondent No.2) as a conductor. He was removed from service by respondent No. 2 on 16/5/1991. On 16/5/1991itself, respondent No. 2 filed all application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal No.II, Delhi, for approval of the respondent's action of removing the petitioner from service. The said application was considered on merits and was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal on 15/7/1995 refusing to grant approval to the removal of the petitioner from service. The Industrial Tribunal held that the management failed to prove that the workman was guilty of any mis-conduct. It was also held that the employer had not even complied with the mandatory requirement or sending one month's wages to the workman at the time of filing the application for approval. Through a representation dated 4/10/1995, the petitioner requested respondent No.2 to allow him to join duty and also to pay him wages from 16/5/1991. The petitioner also submitted an application to respondent No.1 (Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi) for initiating prosecution proceedings against respondent No.2 for contravening the provision of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, respondent No.1 did not initiate any proceedings and respondent No.2 did not reinstate the petitioner in service or pay his wages. Hence, the petitioner prays for issuing a writ of mandamus to respondent No.1 directing him to initiate prosecution of respondent No.2 under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act for contravention or Section 33 of the said Act. It is also prayed that the respondent be directed to pay wages to the petitioner from 16/5/1991.

(2.) (2) Respondents have not filed any reply or counter affidavit. The facts stated in the petition were not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing and hence they remain uncontroverted. Admittedly respondent No.2 did not challenge the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 15/7/1995 dismissing the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the petitioner removal from service. Hence the said order dated 15/7/1995 has become final and binding on respondent No.2

(3.) (3) The main question arising for consideration in this writ petition relates to the consequences of the rejection or an application filed by an employer for approval of discharge or dismissal of a workman under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).