RAJ KUMAR Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 17.11.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal on an application filed by the respondent/DTC under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act granting the approval as required in favour of the respondent/ management and holding inter alia that the petitioner/workman had failed to show that he had got his leave sanctioned before proceeding on leave.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of WW-2, a co-workman, and states that the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the said cross-examination while passing the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order, however, shows otherwise. In para 14 of the impugned order, the Industrial Tribunal has discussed at length the said evidence tendered by WW-2 and observed that no record or leave register was proved or brought on record by him in support of his claim that he had gone to the Depot on five occasions to deliver the leave applications of the petitioner, nor did the said witness specify the dates or the period of leave applications of the petitioner/workman which he had claimed to deliver. It was further observed that the said witness had not stated as to whether any medical certificates were attached to the applications. Keeping the aforesaid deposition of the witness in mind, the Industrial Tribunal observed that mere oral deposition of the said witness was worthless, in the absence of being supported by any documentary proof.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner further admits that copies of the applications were not on the record of the Tribunal. He also admits that the said records were not summoned by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal and the Industrial Adjudicator did not have the benefit of the said records. In the absence of any documentary evidence placed on the record, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for having arrived at the conclusion that it did in the impugned order. An attempt is also made by the counsel for the petitioner to point out certain executive instructions which are stated to be contrary to the Standing Orders of the respondent/DTC, referred to in para 12 of the impugned order. The said executive instructions dated 5.8.1955 have been referred to for the first time in the writ petition and it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that they were violated by the respondent/DTC. It is not denied that the aforesaid executive instructions were never produced before the Industrial Tribunal. In any case, the Standing Orders of the respondent/DTC have statutory force and the executive instructions cannot override the said Standing Orders as contended by the counsel for the petitioner. No other plea is taken by the counsel for the petitioner.