D.T.C. Vs. DHOJ PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioner impugns the order dated 22 nd December, 2004 and the award dated 2 nd February, 2005wherebyit was held that the report of the Inquiry Officer was not based upon cogent material, was perverse and thus vitiated and since the Petitioner did not seek the leave to lead the evidence even if the issue in the inquiry was decided against him in the written statement, no further opportunity can be granted to him to prove the misconduct of the workman and thus the termination was held to be illegal and unjustified and the Respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages from the date of the termination.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the order dated 22 nd December, 2004 declaring the inquiry to be vitiated as the passenger witnesses were not examined is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSTRC (NWKRTC) vs. A.T. Mane, 2004 10 AD(SC) 228 and State of Haryana and another vs. Rattan Singh, 1977 2 SCC 491. It is contended that going into sufficiency of evidence in an inquiry proceedings is beyond the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and an interference into the finding of the inquiry report can be made only if it is perverse or contrary to the principles of natural justice. The final award was passed on the basis of the inquiry issue and no opportunity to lead evidence was given to the Petitioner as the same was not prayed in the written statement. Reliance is placed on Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Jaipal Singh,2007 1 AD(Del) 189. The Respondent was permitted to join the services pursuant to the order under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ID Act) on 1 st January, 2009 and thereafter again on checking it was found that he had Rs. 1,294/- in excess thus he again misconducted himself.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that the contentions now being raised by the Petitioner have not been raised in the writ petition. The finding on the issue of inquiry in the approval application does not operate as res-judicata on the finding to be arrived at for the inquiry in an industrial dispute raised by the workman. Learned Trial Court committed no illegality in not permitting the additional evidence as the said liberty was not sought in the written statement. Reliance is placed on Karnataka State Transport Corporation vs. Laksmidevamma and another, 2001 5 SCC 433 and Surinder Pal vs. Management of DTC, 2008 152 DLT 671. Further no application was filed seeking permission to lead evidence hence the learned Trial Court rightly did not allow the Petitioner to lead additional evidence. The statement of the Respondent could not be termed as an admission as the same was signed under protest and thus there is no illegality in the impugned order/award.