DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. VIRENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment I would dispose of two writ petitions being WP (C)No.5561/2000 filed by Delhi Transport Corporation challenging the validity and illegality of the order dated 4.9.1997 and 17.8.1997. Annexure P-16 and P-17 respectively to the writ petition passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Delhi and WP(C)No.6344/1999 filed by the workman praying therein that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to join duty and also pay him back wages from 29.1.1991 (the date of his alleged termination). The relevant facts to the present writ petitions are that the workman was employed as a Conductor with the corporation on 19.3.1986. He was stated to be having dual employment i.e. with Delhi Transport Corporation as well as UBS Programmes w.e.f. 25.4.1989. After conducting a fact finding enquiry the workman was served a charge-sheet on 15.11.1990 for the alleged misconduct to which the workman filed a reply denying all the articles of charges. Enquiry officer was appointed who started the enquiry proceedings on 8.8.1991. Despite opportunities the workman is stated to have not joined the departmental proceedings. Taking ex parte proceedings against the workman the enquiry officer concluded his proceedings and submitted his report on 30.8.1991 holding that the misconduct against the petitioner under Section 19(b) and (m) of the DTRA Rules being passed and consequently show cause notice dated 30.8.1991 was served upon the workman who submitted his reply on 9.9.1991. However, the depot manager of the petitioner corporation vide his order dated 9.12.1991 exercising his powers under clause 15(2)(vi) of the DRTA, 1952 passed the order removing the petitioner from service and simultaneously the corporation filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act which was registered as case No.118/1991. It may be noticed at this stage itself that another dispute between the parties was already pending before that court being case No.17/1988.

(2.) However, that case has no bearing on the controversy in the present case. On 4.9.1997 the Industrial Tribunal decided the preliminary issue by holding that Corporation had failed to conduct a fair and proper enquiry. The Tribunal then fixed the case for consideration in regard to misconduct of the workman. As the management had failed to produce any evidence at both these stages, the Industrial Tribunal vide its order dated 17.8.1999 rejected the application of the Corporation for approval of its action under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act.

(3.) These two orders are questioned by the corporation in these writ petitions. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner corporation while relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 860 (V 48 C 139), The Lord Krishna Textile Mills Vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 1156, The Management of Swatantra Bharat Mills, New Delhi Vs. Ratan Lal, AIR 1969 SC 983, Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash Chand Jain and AIR 1978 1004, Lalla Ram V. Management of DCM Chemical Works Ltd. and another contended that ambit and scope of jurisdiction exercisable by the Tribunal under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act is a very limited one. This jurisdiction is neither as wide nor as unlimited as jurisdiction of a Civil Appellate Court. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal does not permit it to go into the factual correctness or otherwise of the domestic enquiry while re-appreciating the entire evidence produced during the domestic enquiry. Further he contends that once the file containing the record of the domestic enquiry was produced before the Tribunal it tantamount to establishing a prima facie case showing the fairness of the domestic enquiry. Thus, the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the application of the Corporation for the reasons stated in that order.