DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the award dated 9.11.2004 in ID No.235/96 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.7, Delhi. The industrial dispute was raised by Sh.Sukhbir Singh. The reference to the Labour Court was in the following terms:-

(2.) The respondent/workman was working as a conductor with the petitioner/DTC. He was served with a charge sheet dated 15.7.1994. The allegation against him was that while he was on duty on bus No.9696 plying between Baprola to Delhi, his bus was checked and one passenger who had paid Rs.35 was found without ticket. An enquiry was held and thereafter the respondent was removed from service. The respondent alleged in his statement of claim filed before the Labour Court that the enquiry was improper and the findings were perverse. The petitioner-management took the stand that the workman had collected the due fare from the passengers and had not issued ticket, that the reply to the charge sheet was not found satisfactory, that during the enquiry the workman accepted the charges without any pressure and accordingly he was removed from service. The Labour Court framed two issues as under:-

(3.) The first issue was treated as preliminary issue. On 3.3.2004 the Labour Court held that the enquiry had not been held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that the workman had not been given any opportunity to defend himself. It was further observed that there was no challenge to the testimony of the workman. Consequently, the enquiry was set aside and the issue was decided in favour of the workman. In the award dated 9.1.2004 the Labour Court observed that since the workman had been terminated without holding a proper and valid enquiry the workman was entitled to reinstatement. Further he was given full back wages and other consequential benefits as the management failed to produce evidence of gainful employment of the workman. In the writ petition the finding of the Labour Court in the order dated 3.3.2004 is challenged. The grounds for challenge are as under:-