DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SUDAN PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.(C) No.10800/2005 impugns the award dated 9th July, 2004 of the Labour Court holding the petitioner DTC to have illegally terminated the services of the respondent workman and directing the petitioner DTC to reinstate the respondent workman with continuity of service and full back wages and other consequential benefits. W.P.(C) No.10938/2005 impugns the order dated 3rd August, 2000 of the Labour Court dismissing the application of the petitioner DTC under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking approval of its disciplinary action resulting in removal of the respondent workman from service. The facts for the disciplinary action as well as of the dispute raised before the Labour Court are the same.

(2.) The respondent workman was employed as a Conductor with the petitioner DTC. The charge against him was that on 17th June, 1991 he was on duty as a Conductor on route No.319; that the respondent workman while on duty on the said route, after covering a distance of 14 Km., in collusion with the Driver of the bus, stopped the bus at Gazipur Dairy Farm without any reason and made the passengers on the said bus alight by representing to them that there was some fault with the bus; that in fact there was no fault with the said bus and no intimation of the fault, if any with the bus, as required to be given in case of a fault, was given to the Control Room or to the Depot; that upon the bus not reaching its destination, other staff of the DTC was sent to locate the said bus but without any success.

(3.) The respondent workman was thus charged with putting the passengers who were made to alight to inconvenience, tarnishing the image of the DTC and causing loss to the DTC by not completing the remaining trip of the bus. The departmental enquiry found the respondent workman to be guilty and the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner DTC imposed the punishment of removal of the respondent workman from employment. However, in view of the pendency then of a general dispute of the DTC with its workmen, the application aforesaid under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act seeking approval of the action of removal of the respondent workman from employment was filed.