DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. BISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short controversy arising in the present petition is whether the petitioner had remitted one month 's wages at the time of the removal of the respondent as per the mandate of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts in nutshell for decision of the present case are as under:

(3.) REFUTING the said submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner, the Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner failed to fulfil the mandate of Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act as one month wages were never paid by the petitioner to the respondent. The contention of the Counsel for the respondent is that the findings of the Tribunal cannot be assailed by the petitioner wherein clearly the Tribunal came to the conclusion based on Ex. AW1/R -1 and AW1/R -2 which bears the correct address of the respondent i.e. H. No. D -910/1 Ashok Nagar, Delhi -93 and thus is not the address on which the money order was sent by the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent invited attention of this Court to the Ex. AW 1/R -1 which is a copy of the letter dated 7.12.1990 written by the petitioner/DTC to the respondent requiring him to report for duty and the said letter clearly bears the address of the respondent as D -910/1, Ashok Nagar and not the one at which the petitioner had sent the money order. Clearly the order of termination was passed by the petitioner on 15.1.1992 and therefore one month 's wages were required to be paid by the petitioner either directly to the respondent or at the correct address of the respondent. Once the said address was available with the petitioner on which the communication dated 7.12.1990 was made them to send the money order at some other address shows clear negligence on the part of the petitioner and the same cannot be taken as due compliance of Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. The Supreme Court in AIR 1962 SC 1500 (V 49 C 218) The Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Saharanpur v. Govind has held as under: