DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. GORDHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delhi Transport Corporation filed an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for seeking approval of the Court for its action for removing the workman from service. This application of the Corporation was dismissed and approval prayed for decline vide order datd 24.3.2003 of the Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. In the present writ petition, the Corporation thus challenges the legality and correctness of this order.

(2.) According to the case of the Management of the Corporation, Gordhan Dass was working as a Conductor with the Corporation. He was on duty on Bus No.6261 on Route No.094 on 20.7.2003. On that date the checking scott, upon checking the bus found that the 5 tickets were found to be down side but the bus was coming to Sultan Puri from Railway Station on up side round. On verification of the waybill of the Conductor it was found that tickets No.944/10860 was closed from preliminary side and from Railway Station side it was closed on 10955. There was excess of Rs.42/- on the counting of the cash with the Conductor. The checking scott prepared a challan. Statement of the passenger was handed over to the workman and his signatures and written statement were obtained. In view of this incident the Management served upon the workman a charge-sheet on 20.8.1993. The workman denied articles of charges. Domestic enquiry was conducted against the workman in view of his denial reply dated 27.8.1993 to the charge-sheet. The enquiry officer submitted a report on 21.10.1993 holding the workman guilty of misconduct of the articles of charges and consequently of misconduct under Rule 19(b) (f) and (h) of the standing orders governing the conduct of DTC employees. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the filing of the enquiry officer issued a show cause notice to the workman on 4.11.1993 to which he submitted a reply. After considering the reply, order dated 24.12.1993 was passed against the workman removing him from service and also one month salary was sent to the workman by Money Order on the same date. Having taken this action the Corporation also moved an application under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act seeking approval of its action before the Labour Court which was rejected by order dated 24.3.2003 as already noticed above, giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that the Industrial Tribunal has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it and an incorrect appreciation of evidence has declined the approval. According to him the management had established a prima facie case to show that the enquiry was fair and the department was justified in imposing the punishment of removal from service upon the workman.

(3.) At this stage, it may be noticed that the workman had filed a writ petition being WP(C)No.4246/2003 praying that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Smt Jarina Bee, JT 2003 Vol. 5 SC 542 holding that once after enquiry application under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act is dismissed the order of dismissal has to be treated as non est entitling the petitioner for all consequential reliefs, a direction be issued to the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with consequential benefits. According to the workman he had not misconducted himself and the order of dismissal was not only ineffective but was non est. In view of the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 24.3.2003 the workman also filed an application before the Chairman, Delhi Transport Corporation (Annexure C to the writ petition) wherein he prayed before the Corporation for the same relief.