DTC Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, this Court proposes to dispose of both the writ petitions, being W.P. (C) No. 507/2006 filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) and W.P. (C) No. 5724/2005 filed by the workman as both arise out of the same impugned order dated 2.9.2002, by which the Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dismissed the approval application filed by the DTC under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes ACT, 1947(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). While DTC by way of its petition has sought for quashing and setting aside of the impugned award and for holding the DTC to be entitled to the approval sought by it under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the workman in his petition has prayed for directions to be issued to the DTC to reinstate him in service and pay him full back wages from the date of his termination, till the date of his reinstatement, in view of the rejection order dated 2.9.2002, passed by the Tribunal.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, facts of W.P.(C) No. 507/2006 are being taken note of. The respondent workman was employed as a Driver with the petitioner DTC. On 11.12.1991, the police arrested him on charges of kidnapping and rape of a girl. On 17.1.1992, the Depot Manager of Shahadra Deport-II issued a charge sheet to the respondent workman on the ground of concealing the fact of his arrest from the employer, i.e., the petitioner DTC, which amounted to misconduct within the meaning of paras 19(f), (k) and (m) of the standing orders of the D.R.T.C. An oral enquiry was conducted into the charges and the respondent workman was found guilty and removed from service on 19.10.1992. Immediately thereupon, the petitioner DTC filed an approval petition before the Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act seeking approval of its action of removing the respondent workman from service. In the said proceedings, a preliminary issue was framed on 10.5.1993 to decide whether the enquiry conducted by the petitioner DTC against the respondent workman was legal and valid and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

(3.) In his reply to the said petition, the respondent workman denied that he had committed the said misconduct and stated that he had intimated the petitioner DTC of his arrest at the earliest possible opportunity available to him after his release on bail, i.e. on 6.1.1992. He stated that the enquiry was vitiated since he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the enquiry officer ignored his contentions. Thereafter, evidence of the witnesses of both the parties was recorded, and on the basis of the evidence recorded as also the arguments of both the parties, vide order dated 6.9.2001, the Tribunal observed that there was no reason to hold that the enquiry officer did not follow the principles of natural justice or did not give ample opportunity to the respondent workman to defend himself. However, after going through the report of the enquiry officer and the relevant Office Order and the Standing Orders, the Tribunal went on to hold that since in any case the respondent workman did inform the petitioner DTC about his arrest, before the letter of the police was received in the depot and the reporter submitted his report to the Depot Manager, therefore the report of the enquiry officer was held to be perverse.