DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-workman is aggrieved by the order dated 17th February, 2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby its application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(`the Act of 1947' in short) seeking approval of its action taken to remove the respondent no.1, who was employed with as a conductor, from its service because of his having committed a serious act of misconduct was rejected.

(2.) THE respondent-workman was charge-sheeted on the allegations that while performing his duty as a conductor on 09-07-1991 on bus no.DLP-9038 he had not issued tickets to six passengers after collecting money from them and that was detected when the checking team of DTC entered his bus for checking and those six passengers had informed them that they had paid the money to the conductor(respondent herein) but he had not issued them the tickets. When the checking officials wanted to record the statements of those passengers the respondent created a scene and did not allow the passengers to give their statements. Another allegations was that his voucher at that time was found to be incomplete and also that he had refused to receive the copy of the challan which the checking officials had prepared at the spot narrating therein whatever had transpired there. After issuing the charge-sheet to the respondent the petitioner ordered an enquiry also against him to look into these charges. As per the case of the petitioner a proper enquiry was held in which the enquiry officer found all the allegations to have been established and accepting the report of the enquiry officer the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the respondent after giving his a show cause notice to which he had responded also vide his reply dated 07.10.1992. Since at that time some industrial dispute was pending before the Industrial Tribunal between the management of DTC and its workmen the petitioner had to seek approval of that Tribunal of its action taken for the removal of the respondent from its services vide removal order dated 30.10.1992 and accordingly it had filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947.

(3.) LEARNED Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion after examining the evidence adduced before it that the alleged misconduct did not stand established for the reason that statements of the concerned passengers who were found to be travelling without tickets were not recorded at the time of checking and the statements of the checking officials were not acceptable. As a result of these findings the Industrial Tribunal rejected the approval application.