KRISHAN CHANDER Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment I would dispose of two writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 3379/2003 and W.P. (C) No. 5712/2003. The first writ petition has been filed by the workman under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction to the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation to grant him reinstatement with consequential benefits after rejection of the application filed by the Corporation under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide order dated 23rd October, 2002, while in the latter the Corporation challenges the correctness of the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal dated 23rd October, 2002. As both these petitions arise from one and the same award, it will be appropriate to dispose of both these petitions by a common judgment.

(2.) Before examining the merits or otherwise of the contentions raised before me during the course of hearing, it will be useful to refer to the facts giving rise to the present petition.

(3.) Workman-Krishan Chander was working as a driver with Delhi Transport Corporation. He was served with charge-sheet on 25th October, 1991 with the allegations that he availed 40 days leave without pay during the period between 1.1.1991 to 30.6.1991. A domestic enquiry, in accordance with the rules, was conducted against the workman, upon conclusion of which a show cause notice was served upon the workman on 24th November, 1992. Finally, an order of punishment removing the workman from service of the Corporation was passed on 7th January, 1993. Thereafter the Corporation applied for approval of the action under Section 33(2) (b) of the Act. The learned Industrial Tribunal, Karkardoma Courts, Delhi, after recording the evidence, vide order dated 23rd October, 2002, declined to approve the action of the respondent-Corporation and rejected its application giving rise to filing of the present writ petition by the Corporation. As already noticed above, the workman claims consequential enforcement of the order by way of reinstatement with full back wages.