DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties the matter is set for final hearing.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned award on the premise that the Labour Court has placed undue weightage on non-supply of some documents to the workman and non production of ticketless passengers during the course of the enquiry proceedings. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the charged employee who was a conductor at the relevant time had misconducted himself by indulging into an act of corruption in not issuing the tickets in as much as to 12 passengers and such serious misconduct should have weighed with the Labour Court while deciding the reference. Another contention which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry proceedings are not governed by strict rules of Evidence Act and it is only total lack of evidence but not sufficiency of evidence could be a ground for interference by the Labour Court in the findings of the enquiry officer. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is not merely non-supply of the documents to the workman but coupled with prejudice being caused to the rights of the workman in absence of such documents, can only result into violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his arguments counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane reported at JT 2004 (8) SC 103 in Para 9 of this judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court after placing reliance on its another judgment in the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Rattan Singh reported in (1977) 2 SCC 491 has held as under:-

(3.) "In the present case, evidence of the inspector is some evidence which has relevance to the charge and the courts below had misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of ticketless passengers. Also merely because the statements were not recorded, the order for termination cannot be invalid in fact, the inspector tried to get their statements but the passengers declined. Further, it was not for the court but the tribunal to assess the evidence of the conductor."