OMPRAKASH Vs. D T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd September, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal in an application filed under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) ON the ground of commission of misconduct of collecting fare without issuing the tickets, a departmental proceeding was instituted against the appellant herein. On completion of the said inquiry, the appellant was found guilty of the charges framed against him and accordingly upon consideration of the reply filed by the appellant, a show cause notice was issued to him as to why his services should not be terminated. Disciplinary authority finally passed an order on 16th October, 1992 terminating the services of the appellant by giving him one month's wages.

(3.) AFTER passing the aforesaid order and as required under the provisions of section 33 (2) (b) of the Act, the respondent filed an application before the Tribunal seeking approval of the aforesaid termination order issued by the respondent. On receipt of the said application, the learned Industrial Tribunal took up the matter for consideration and on consideration of the records and the evidence adduced by the parties and on the basis of the records available herein held that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the inquiry. The learned Presiding officer, Industrial Tribunal, upheld the legality and validity of the domestic inquiry held against the appellant and thereafter, proceeded to deal with the additional two issues which were framed in the said proceedings. The first being as to whether the management was entitled to the approval of the action as claimed and the second as to whether the workman is guilty of misconduct. Entire records were examined by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and thereafter, it was held that the action taken is according to law. The Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that the appellant had in fact collected money for 141/2 tickets but did not issue tickets to the passengers and that during the raid, unquenched tickets were given to the inspecting staff. It was held that the appellant had misconduct himself by collecting the due fare from the passengers and not issuing tickets for the fare collected. The defence taken by the appellant, as it appears, that he had developed acute stomach pain as soon as he boarded the bus and that he was suffering from fever on that day and therefore he had equested the driver of the bus to give the tickets was rejected after examining facts and evidence on recorded. On going through the records, we find that the said bus driver was not produced as a defense witness by the appellant. Besides, when the appellant could collect the fare from those passengers, he could have definitely issued tickets to them as and when he received the fare from the aforesaid passengers.