OM KANWAR Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioner, i.e., Shri Om Kanwar (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner -workman') has preferred the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of impugned Award dated 28.04.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. IX, Karkardooma, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator') in I.D. No. 477/91 (old No. 477/91 - 64/89).

(2.) THE brief facts as stated are that the petitioner -workman, i.e., Shri Om Kanwar was appointed as conductor w.e.f 18.05.1975 at a monthly salary of Rs 1300/ - per month. The petitioner -workman was on duty in bus No. DL -P -1064 plying on Machiwara -Delhi route. On 12.04.1984, the checking officers of the respondent -management intercepted the said bus at Ambala Cantt. at about 08.15 hours and detected a group of six passengers alighting from the bus without tickets. It is alleged that the said passengers had already paid the fare @ Rs 5.70 each to the petitioner -workman but the petitioner failed to issue the tickets to them. Similarly, it is further alleged that two more passengers had also paid the fare @ Rs 16.90 each but they were also not issued tickets. The petitioner -workman on being asked for an explanation denied the allegations and stated them to be false. Thereafter, an enquiry was entrusted to one Shri Ashcharj Lal, ATC of Okhla I Depot and the respondent -management despite being given opportunity, failed to examine the witnesses. Consequently, the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner -workman from the charge on 03.01.1986. The said order of the enquiry officer was quashed by the G.M. (S) vide order dated 12.02.1987 who directed that de novo enquiry be conducted by Depot Manager, Ambedkar Nagar Depot. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner -workman and the Depot Manager, Okhla proceeded against the workman and passed the removal order dated 19.06.1987.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner -workman draws the attention of this Court to the enquiry proceedings, which concluded on 03.01.1986, in which the respondent -management could not prove the charge of misconduct against the petitioner -workman. The first enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner -workman by the management resulted in exoneration of the petitioner -workman by the enquiry officer's report dated 03.01.1986 and subsequently, a de novo enquiry was conducted without issuing the notice and the same is bad in law.