LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-214

RAJBIR SINGH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Decided On September 08, 2015
RAJBIR SINGH Appellant
V/S
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE adverting to the facts of the present case it would be appropriate to note the legal position in relation to the scope of adjudication of an application for approval under Section 33(2) (b) of the ID Act, 1947 which provides as under:

(2.) IN the decision reported as : AIR 1959 SC 389 M/s. G.Mckenzie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Workmen & Ors. the Supreme Court laid down that Section 33 ID Act, 1947 does not confer any jurisdiction on the Tribunal to adjudicate on a dispute but it merely empowers the Tribunal to give or withhold permission to the employer during the pendency of an industrial dispute to discharge or punish a workman concerned in the industrial dispute; in deciding whether permission should or should not be granted the Industrial Tribunal is not to act as a reviewing tribunal against the decision of the management but to see that before it lifts the ban against the discharge or punishment of the workmen, the employer makes out a prima facie case. The nature and scope of proceedings under Section 33 shows that removing or refusing to remove the ban on punishment or dismissal of workmen does not bar the raising of an industrial dispute when as a result of the permission of the Industrial Tribunal the employer dismisses or punishes the workmen. As the purpose of Section 33 of the Act is merely to give or withhold permission and not to adjudicate upon an industrial dispute, any finding under Section 33 would not operate as res -judicata and bar the raising of an industrial dispute.

(3.) IT is trite law that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court and they are free to devise rules of procedure in accordance with principles of natural justice. Thus in an application under Section 33(2) (b) ID Act, it is not the requirement of law that the Tribunal will insist proof of the enquiry conducted in accordance with Indian Evidence Act by examining the Inquiry Officer and exhibiting the report. Suffice it is that the enquiry report and the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer are produced before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. The Constitution Bench in the decision reported as : JT 2010 (5) 553 Union of India Vs. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association after noting the distinction between a Court and Tribunal, held that while Courts are governed by detailed statutory procedural rules, in particular the Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act requiring an elaborate procedure in decision making, Tribunals generally regulate their own procedure applying the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure only where it is required, and without being restricted by the strict rules of Evidence Act.