DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. JASMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's application under Sec. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stands dismissed vide impugned order of 6th Aug., 2005 by Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) while holding that the alleged misconduct against respondent-workman herein does not stand established. The facts already noted in impugned order need no reproduction. Suffice to note that respondent-conductor was proceeded against departmentally on account of non-issue of tickets to two passengers although he had collected the fare. On the aforesaid misconduct, respondent was charge-sheeted on 3rd Oct., 1991 and in the inquiry conducted, he was found guilty of the aforesaid misconduct, and respondent-workman was removed from service vide order of 5th March, 1992. On the strength of evidence of Inquiry Officer (AW-1), Checking Officer (AW-2), petitioner's Depot Manager (AW-3), who has proved the past record of respondent, and evidence of Samundar Singh, one of the members of the Checking Team, impugned order has been rendered.

(2.) The precise submission of petitioner's counsel is that the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the evidence of Inquiry Officer (AW-1) and of Checking Officer (AW-2) and petitioner's Depot Manager (AW-3), who has proved the past record of respondent, and has solely relied upon evidence of Samundar Singh, one of the members of Checking Team, to hold that respondent-workman's mis-conduct is not proved and in fact from the evidence of Sant Lal (AW-2), it stands proved that the Inquiry against respondent was not vitiated. So, it is submitted by petitioner's counsel that impugned order deserves to be set aside and the approval to removal of respondent from service ought to be accorded.

(3.) On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-workman supports the impugned order and submits that even from the evidence of remaining witnesses, it becomes clear that the principles of natural justice have been violated and so, impugned order deserves to be maintained as respondent was not granted any opportunity to defend himself in the Inquiry conducted against him. So, dismissal of this petition is sought by respondent-workman's counsel. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed by respondent-workman's counsel upon Supreme Court's decision in M.D. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Neethivilangan Kumbakonam, AIR 2001 SC 2309. Reliance is also placed upon Supreme Court's decision in J.H. Patel (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Others Vs. Nuboard Manufacturing Company Limited and Others, (2014) 11 SCC 371 to submit that even after retirement of the employee, back wages were awarded and so, respondent ought to be granted retiral benefits with back wages. Nothing else is urged on behalf of either side.