SHARIEF AHMED Vs. D T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, both the writ petitions are proposed to be disposed of as both of them arise out of the order dated 30th September, 2003 and award dated 25th November, 2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal in OP No. 169/1994.

(2.) While DTC, the petitioner, in WP(C) No. 14336/2005 has challenged the aforesaid award whereby the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has rejected the application filed by the DTC under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') seeking approval of its action to remove the respondent workman (hereinafter called as 'the workman') from service, relying on the same award, the workman by way of filing WP(C) No. 3926/2004 has sought directions to the DTC to allow the workman to join duty and pay him back wages from the date of his removal from service.

(3.) The brief facts relevant for deciding the present writ petitions are that the workman was appointed by the DTC as a Conductor in the year 1984. On 13th July, 1992, while the workman was performing his duty on bus No. 9064 on the route of Delhi-Faridabad, checking took place by the checking officials of the DTC and it was found that the workman had committed various irregularities, including failure to issue ticket from starting point to a passenger, instigating the passenger, threatening a lady passenger, misbehaving and abusing the checking staff and refusal to unpunch the ticket. On 3rd August, 1992, the workman was served with a charge-sheet on the basis of the report filed against him. A domestic enquiry was held, wherein witnesses were produced by the DTC as well as the workman who were duly examined. Thereafter, arguments were addressed and the Inquiry Officer, after going through the material placed on record, submitted his report to the effect that the workman was guilty of some of the charges. After considering the report of the Inquiry Officer and the past record of the workman, vide order dated 25th July, 1994, the Disciplinary Authority removed the workman from service and remitted one month's wage. Immediately thereafter, the DTC filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act seeking approval of its action of removing the workman from service. A reply was filed to the aforesaid application by the workman. Based of the pleadings of the parties, following preliminary issue was framed :