JAG DEV Vs. D.T.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is limited to the extent of grant of back wages which has been denied by the Labour Court to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was employed as a conductor with the Respondent in the year 1982. On 1 st September, 1992 a charge-sheet was issued to him on the allegations that on 22 nd August, 1992 while he was on duty on bus No. 9823 and his bus was checked by the checking staff at Sona bus stand, it was found that he charged the fare from four passengers but he did not issue the tickets. An enquiry was conducted pursuant whereto the Petitioner was removed from his services with effect from 15 th February, 1995. On a dispute being raised a reference was made to the Industrial adjudicator for adjudication of the following terms:Whether the removal of Shri Jag Dev from service by the management is illegal and/ or unjustified and if so, what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect'"

(2.) The claim of the Petitioner was that the allegations against the Petitioner are wrong and baseless and an unfair and illegal enquiry was conducted and the findings of the enquiry officer were passed on no evidence. The management was duly served, however at the stage of filing of the written statement it was proceeded ex-parte as none appeared on behalf of the management. On the basis of the affidavits of the Petitioner the learned Court decided the matter. The Petitioner and the driver of the bus appeared and stated that the tickets were in the hands of the customers when the checking staff checked since this version of the workman remained unchallenged, as neither any affidavit was filed nor the witnesses were crossexamined, the learned Trial Court held that no fair and proper enquiry was held and the management has failed to prove the charges against the workman in the Court. Thus, the removal of the Petitioner was held to be illegal. As a consequential relief the learned Trial Court directed reinstatement. However since the affidavit on behalf of the workman did not state that the workman remained unemployed after his removal, it was held that the Petitioner/ workman was not entitled to back wages. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) A perusal of the claim statements of the Petitioner shows that he has sought quashing of the punishment of removal with effect from 15 th February, 1995 with all consequential benefits including seniority, back wages, cost of litigation etc. The Petitioner in the affidavit filed also stated that the order of removal was liable to be set aside and the Petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with all benefits including back wages. However, what has not been stated by the Petitioner in the affidavit is that he remained unemployed after the removal. Thus, there was no material before the Court to grant back wages.