DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent -workman who was employed with the appellant did not attend the duty from 29.1.1993 to 16.3.1993 and then from 8.4.1993 to 2.5.1993. Alleging misconduct on the part of the respondent by remaining on leave without prior approval, in contravention of Paragraph 19(b)(m) of the Standing Orders issued by the appellant -DTC, an inquiry was conducted against the respondent. On the basis of the findings recorded in the inquiry, the services of the respondent were terminated vide order dated 25.2.1994. The appellant filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking approval of the Labour Court to remove the respondent from service. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue as to whether the appellant had held a legal, proper and legal inquiry against the respondent. Vide order dated 5.3.2001, the aforesaid preliminary issue was decided against the appellant. It was further held that the respondent had not committed misconduct by availing leave. It was also held that the charge -sheet served upon the respondent was not the basis of the findings recorded in the inquiry. As regards the merit of the charges, the Labour Court vide order dated 20.11.2012 held that no misconduct as alleged in the petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was committed by the respondent. It was however held that the appellant had sent one month's salary to the respondent -workman by way of money order. However, in view of the findings that no misconduct had been committed by the respondent, the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was dismissed.

(2.) THE order passed by the Labour Court on 20.11.2002 was challenged by the appellant by way of a writ petition. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.10.2008 set aside the said order and remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for disposal after hearing the respondent.

(3.) THE Labour Court vide its order dated 16.5.2009 held that the appellant had failed to prove any misconduct on the part of the workman. As regards remitting one month's salary to the respondent, the Labour Court held that the appellant had failed to prove the last drawn wages of the respondent and, therefore, it could not be said that it had complied the requirement of Section 2(b)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The application under Section 33 2(c) was accordingly rejected. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant filed a writ petition which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 20.10.2009. Being aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.