DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SARDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions the Delhi Transport Corporation (for short 'DTC') has challenged sundry Orders of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, not granting its 'approval' under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act) to dismissal orders of various workmen passed by the DTC. The practice invariably adopted by the Tribunal was that on receiving the application under this Section, it had mechanically framed a preliminary issue as to validity of the Enquiry, and called upon the Management to lead its evidence. It is not in dispute that the Enquiry Report/records always accompanied the 'approval application' and that the authenticity of the Report/records had not been challenged by the Workmen. The workmen had instead assailed the validity of the Enquiry. The two questions which have to be addressed is whether firstly this procedure followed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and secondly, does the 'treating of the absence of the workmen as on leave without pay exonerate and extinguish the absence'.

(2.) In CWP 3651/2000, which is symptomatic of the legal controversy in these petitions, the DTC had by its letter dated 28.11.1988 charge-sheeted the workman for having been absent from duty for 171 days during the period from 1.11.1987 to 31.10.1988 and had called for his explanation as to why disciplinary action under para 15(2) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 read with Delhi Transport Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Standing Orders') should not be taken. In his reply it was explained by the workman that he was suffering from continued illness and, therefore, the. Charge-sheet should be withdrawn. An Enquiry was held in which the workman neither asked any question of the Management's witnesses nor produced any of his own. The Report records that on a perusal of the leave record, the workman had availed 138 days leave without pay and 33 days leave without pay on medical grounds. The Enquiry Officer was of the opinion that the workman did not take interest in the work of the Corporation and that Para 19(h) of the Standing Orders was applicable. Thereupon by Memorandum dated 18.1.1989 the Depot Manager indicated to the workman that it was proposed to remove him from the services of the DTC he should show-cause against such action being taken against him. The workman asked for an inspection of documents by his letter dated 30.1.1989 but simultaneously represented that the "report of the enquiry officer is quite illegal, mala fide and based on conjectures and as such the said report must not be relied upon"; thus, it is manifest that he did not deny the authenticity of the records filed by the DTC along with its approval application. The DTC removed the workman from service, by the Order dated 6.7.1990 of the Depot Manager. On the same day the Industrial Tribunal was moved under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, and one month's wages were tendered to the Workman. The records of the Enquiry accompanied this application. In his Reply the workman has vaguely stated, inter alia, that the enquiry had not been conducted properly; that he was not allowed to defend his case; that he was retrenched illegally; but it does not appear that he had contended even at this stage that since his absence had been recorded/regularised in the records of the DTC as 'leave without pay' the contemplated action was illegal. On 9.12.1991 the following preliminary issue was framed-

(3.) The following impugned Order was thereafter passed on 9.2.1996.