D.T.C. Vs. OM PRAKASH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 6 th November, 2000 whereby the application of the Petitioner under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ID Act) was rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the scope for adjudication in an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the ID Act is limited and the learned Tribunal could have only looked into the fact whether the workman was victimized or not. Reliance is placed on Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Shyam Lal, WP (C) No. 3633 of 2004 decided on 1 st July, 2010. There were 16 passengers in the bus in two groups of five passengers and 11 passengers each. Statements of the leader of the each group were taken who stated that they had paid the fair of Rs. 1.50 each to the Conductor but no tickets were issued to them. Their statements were duly exhibited as AW1/R1 and AW1/R2. Thus the learned Tribunal erred in discarding their statements recording before the Enquiry Officer and insisting that the statements of the passengers ought to have been recorded before the Tribunal contrary to the law laid down in State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh, 1977 AIR(SC) 1512 and Delhi Transport Corporation vs. N.L. Kakkar, Presiding Officer and others, 2004 73 DRJ 568. Relying upon the B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, 1995 6 SCC 749 it is stated that the Tribunal could not have gone into the sufficiency of evidence and could have interfered only if it was a case of no evidence. Besides this misconduct of Respondent No. 1, there were 21 adverse entries and hence the Petitioner was justified in removing Respondent No. 1 from the service.

(3.) Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 on the other hand contends that the scope in an application for approval under Section 33 (2) (b) of the ID Act and a reference under Section 10 of the ID Act is same and the learned Tribunal has to come to its own independent conclusion as to whether misconduct has been proved or not. There is no perversity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal and hence no interference is called for. Reliance is placed on Air India Corporation, Bombay vs. V.A. Rebellow and another, 1972 1 SCC 814, Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (Private) Limited vs. Motipur Sugar Factory, 1965 AIR(SC) 1803, Messrs Bharat Iron Works vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others, 1976 1 SCC 518 and Lalla Ram vs. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd. and another, 1978 3 SCC 1.