DTC Vs. NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT was working with the petitioner as a Conductor. He remained absent from duty for 211 days during the period 1st January, 1991 to 30th November, 1991. Petitioner held an enquiry against the respondent on the charge that he was irregular in attending his duty and was not taking interest in the work, thus, had committed misconduct within the meaning of para 4(i) and 19(h) & (m) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of the petitioners' employees. Respondent did not participate in the enquiry and was proceeded against ex -parte. Enquiry Officer considered the evidence adduced by the petitioner and concluded that respondent was guilty of misconduct. Disciplinary Authority considered the enquiry report and issued a show cause notice dated 27th April, 1992 to the respondent. Respondent did not submit any reply. Disciplinary Authority considered the enquiry proceedings and passed the order of removal of respondent from service on 19th May, 1992. On the same day, one month's wages were remitted to the respondent through money order.

(2.) PETITIONER filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act", for short) before the Industrial Tribunal seeking its approval in view of pendency of wage disputes between the petitioner and its workers. Respondent filed written statement. He alleged that he did not commit any misconduct. He also took a plea that Depot Manager was not competent to take disciplinary action. Enquiry was not conducted as per the Rules and Regulations and principles of natural justice were violated. Respondent alleged that he was on leave during the period of his absence. There was no material before the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority to hold that respondent was guilty of misconduct. Reply to the charge -sheet was not considered by the enquiry officer. Respondent was never informed that his leave applications were not received in the office nor that his absence from duty was unauthorised. In the service -book of respondent, petitioner had mentioned that he had remained on leave without pay during the period in question, thus, his absence could not have been treated as unauthorised. Respondent denied that one month's pay was remitted to him. On 15th September, 1993 following issue was framed: -

(3.) PARTIES were permitted to lead evidence which they did. Upon scrutiny of evidence adduced by the parties, Industrial Adjudicator vide order dated 9th March, 1998 held that enquiry was not held in a proper manner and was vitiated. Thereafter, Industrial Adjudicator proceeded to enquire about the misconduct himself and following additional issues were framed on 9th March, 1998: -