D.T.C. Vs. RAM KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioner challenges the orders dated 18 th March, 2004 whereby the enquiry conducted by the Petitioner was held to be not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and 13 th April, 2005 whereby the application of the Petitioner under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "the ID Act') was rejected and the Respondent was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits to the extent of 50% taking into consideration the time that has elapsed and there was no evidence led by the workman that he remained unemployed throughout the proceedings.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset does not challenge the order dated 18 th March, 2004 whereby the preliminary issue whether the inquiry was just and fair was held against it as no inquiry report was exhibited before the Court nor the Enquiry Officer was examined before the Tribunal. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that in the evidence led before the Tribunal the Management was not required to produce the passenger witness and it had led sufficient evidence in the form of Shri Layak Ram AW2 and Rakha Ram AW3 the members of the raiding party. It is contended that the scope for interference by the Tribunal is limited and only if there is no evidence it can set aside the finding of the enquiry however, the Tribunal cannot go into the sufficiency of the evidence. The learned Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the passenger was not examined in view of the decisions in State of Haryana and another vs. Rattan Singh, 1977 2 SCC 491 and Delhi Transport Corporation vs. N.L. Kakkar and another, 2004 110 DLT 493. Reliance is also placed on Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. B.S. Hullikatti, 2001 2 JT 72 to contend that short charging of the fair is a serious misconduct. The evidence proved by the Petitioner was logically probative and thus the dismissal of the Respondent could not have been interfered with.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand relies upon the cross-examination of the witness. It is stated that it is a case of no evidence against the Respondent and thus the Tribunal committed no error in setting aside the dismissal and directing reinstatement with 50% back wages with consequential benefits to the Respondent.