DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SHYAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PER Madan B. Lokur, J: The Petitioner is aggrieved by two orders passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in OP No. 47/1996. By the first impugned order dated 23rd April, 1999, it was held that the domestic inquiry conducted against the Respondent -Workman was vitiated due to the failure of the Enquiry Officer to comply with the principles of natural justice. By the second impugned order dated 15th March, 2001, it was held that the application filed by the Petitioner for approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) of the termination of the services of the Respon -dent -Workman was liable to be rejected.

(2.) THE allegation against the Respondent -Workman, a bus conductor with the Petitioner, was that on 6th June, 1993, a routine checking party found four passengers travelling without a ticket. On enquiry, the passengers stated that they had paid the fare to the Respondent -Workman but he had not issued any ticket to them. The statements of the four passengers were recorded and a challan prepared. The Respondent -Workman signed the challan as well as the statements of the passengers. He also handed over four unpunched tickets of the requisite denominations to the checking staff. A way bill pertaining to the Respondent -Workman was prepared by which he deposited the entire cash amount, including that covered by the unpunched tickets.

(3.) IN the departmental inquiry, two of the four passengers appeared as witnesses for the Respondent -Workman. They stated that they had not given any money to the Respondent -Workman but that the checking staff snatched the money, which they were holding in their hand. The checking staff wrote something on a paper and asked them to sign it. The other two passengers did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. The only other evidence before the Enquiry Officer was the statement of the checking staff, that is, Mahender Singh, Traffic Inspector and Inder Singh, Traffic Supervisor who fully supported the case of the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report in which he chose to disbelieve the two passenger witnesses. The Enquiry Officer found four factors worth noticing. Firstly, the Respondent -Workman handed over four unpunched tickets of the requisite denominations, thereby admitting that he had taken the fare without issuing the necessary tickets. Secondly, this was tacitly confirmed by him when he deposited the full cash, including for the unpunched tickets, as per the waybill. Thirdly, he countersigned the challan and statement of the passengers of his free will. Finally, the two passenger witnesses stated that the checking staff wrote down their statements, which they signed, but the statements on record showed that the passengers themselves wrote them. As such, the testimony of these two passengers recorded in the inquiry could not be believed.