MAHAVIR SINGH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPN.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Mahavir Singh by this Writ Petition has challenged the order of his termination as Conductor by his employer, Delhi Transport Corporation (in short DTC He has claimed constitution in service with consequential benefits therein.

(2.) Mr. S.N. Bhandari, counsel for the DTC at the outlet took objection to the maintainability of this writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that ever though the D.T.C. is an instrumentality of the State as defined under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India, still this Court cannot entertain this petition in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner being a workman and DTC being an industry, the proper and efficacious remedy available to him is before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act (in short 'the Act'). In case the petitioner invokes the provisions of the Act, in that eventuality DTC would be in a position to defend its action by leading evidence before the Tribunal. Whereas in the writ petition this Court cannot go into disputed question of facts, nor would be able to give directions of reinstatement. Such directions can only be given by the Industrial Tribunal. This Court at best can quash the impugned order, but cannot reinstate the petitioner, therefore, proper and efficacious remedy is by raising industrial dispute.

(3.) In order to appreciate relevant contentions raised on merits and the objection raised by the counsel for respondent, the facts relevant to determine these contentions are that the petitioner was selected as Conductor. He passed the written test. Vide order dated Oct. 1984, he was appointed as "Retainer Crew" Conductor. Subsequently on 27th June, 1988 he was appointed on regular rates of pay as Conductor. His appointment was purely temporary and he was to be on probation for a period of one year extendable upto two years. It was further the term of his employment that during the probationary period his services could be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reason. The other conditions of his appointment and services were to be as embodied in the D.R.T.A. (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulation, 1952 (in short the "Regulation"). It is the case of the petitioner that he was performing his duties to the best of his ability, but D.T.C. implicated him regarding non issuing of six tickets to six passengers. According to the case set up by D.T.C. on 23rd Feb., 1986, while he was on duty as Conductor in Bus No. 3052 of Route No. 403, which operated between Okhla and Old Delhi Railway Station, a group of 16 passengers boarded the said bus from Zoo to Ashram. At Ashram, the said bus was checked by the checking staff who found six passengers without tickets. Six unpunched tickets were recovered from him. He admitted his guilt before the passengers when confronted before them. Hence, he was challenged for mis-appropriation of DTC's funds. Thereafter, vide letter dated 17th March, 1986 effective from 18th March, 1986, his services were terminated under clause 9 (a) Q) of the Regulation. Alongwith this letter a sum of Rs. 1,487.30P as wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation on account of his termination were sent.