DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. BALESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of orders dated 6.9.2002 and 24.3.2003 passed by the Labour Court. By order dated 6.9.2002, Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted by the petitioner against the respondent was vitiated and not valid. Thereafter, Labour Court framed issue whether the respondent committed misconduct and recorded evidence of the parties and passed an order dated 24.3.2003 dismissing the application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was working as a bus conductor. On 5.8.1992, he was performing his duty on bus route from Faridabad to Delhi. His bus was checked by the checking staff at 2145 hours at Faridabad Bus Adda and a passenger was found traveling without ticket. When the passenger was enquired, he told that he had paid the due fare of Rs.2/- but he was not issued ticket by the conductor. The checking staff recorded statement of the passenger behind the challan and obtained an unpunched ticket from the conductor of Rs.2/-. The conductor countersigned the statement of the passenger without recording any protest and because the passenger was illiterate so, his thumb impression was obtained. A charge-sheet was issued to the conductor of the charges of mis-appropriation of the revenue and dishonestly dealing with the corporation. The conductor did not reply to the charge-sheet so, an enquiry was conducted into the charges and after enquiry he was found guilty of the charges. A penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on conductor and along with the dismissal order salary of one month as required under law, was sent to him. An application under Section 33(2)(b) was made after passing of the dismissal order which was dismissed by the impugned orders.

(3.) A perusal of the order dated 6.9.2002 passed by the Tribunal would show the Tribunal did not hold that the enquiry was not conducted according to principles of natural justice or opportunity was not given to the respondent to defend himself. The only reason given by the Tribunal for holding that enquiry as vitiated is that the passenger who, was found without ticket had not supported the version of the management and took the stand that he was about to receive the ticket when his hand was caught by flying squad. In the order dismissing application under Section 33(2)(b), the Tribunal acted as a Court of Appeal over the decision of the enquiry officer, re-appreciated the evidence and gave its own findings on the evidence. The Tribunal transgressed its jurisdiction. It was only to see if, a prima facie case was made out against the delinquent and there was some evidence which linked the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him.