D.T.C. Vs. VED PRAKASH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order dated 27th March, 2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (Tribunal) is the subject matter of challenge in this Civil Writ Petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) seeking approval of its action to remove the respondent from service.

(2.) Admittedly, the respondent No.1 was appointed as an Assistant Fitter with the petitioner on 7th April, 1978. He was confirmed as Fitter on 1st July, 1983. On 03.08.1992 Shri Harendra Singh Yadav, the Foreman, under whose supervision the respondent No.1 was working, reported to the petitioner that the respondent No.1, who has been deputed in general shift from 07:30 to 16:00 hours to look after the maintenance of generators installed in the Depot, is in the habit of missing from his duty after getting marked his attendance. He was advised verbally so many times but he does not take care of it. He does not take interest in the work and challenge that nobody can stop him for leaving the Depot unauthorisedly. On that day i.e. 03.08.1992 Shri Ved Parkash, Fitter got marked his attendance and ran away from the Depot at 13:30 hours without his permission and did not turn up upto 16:00 hours. Shri Yadav requested to take necessary action.

(3.) On receiving this information, the Depot Manager, Rohini-2 issued a charge-sheet (Ex.AW1/1) to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 in his reply dated 3rd September, 1992 denied being absent from duty. He pleaded that he was cleaning the generators in the generator room and nobody came there to check on him.