DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. MANJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed by Delhi Transport Corporation (in short 'dtc', the petitioner herein) is directed against an order dated 26. 07. 2003 under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 declining approval to it for removal of the respondent from its service w. e. f. 20. 09. 2003.

(2.) HEARD.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that the respondent was employed as Assistant Fitter with the petitioner w. e. f. 17. 08. 1984. He was charge-sheeted vide charge- sheet dated 17. 09. 1992 with allegations that on 23. 06. 1992 at about 13:00 hours, he had entered the office of Mr. M. L. Aggarwal, Depot Manager, Naraina Depot without his permission and attempted to hit and manhandled him with chair, table glass, pen stand and telephone receiver. The respondent also disconnected the telephone receiver and its wire and tried to bind the telephone extension wire around the neck of Mr. M. L. Aggarwal with intention to kill him. It was further alleged against the respondent that he had broken the pen stand lying on the table of Depot Manager Mr. Aggawal and torn his baniyan and shirt. The respondent was chargesheeted for major penalty for his alleged misconduct within the meaning of Clauses 19 (a) (c) (g) and (m)of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of DTC employees. A domestic inquiry was conducted against the respondent in which he was found guilty of charges leveled against him vide charge-sheet dated 17. 09. 1992. The disciplinary authority after considering the inquiry report removed the respondent from its service vide order dated 20. 09. 2003 and since an industrial dispute relating to general demands by the workers' union was pending adjudication before the Industrial Adjudicator, the petitioner filed an application under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of its action for terminating the respondent from its service w. e. f. 20. 09. 2003 and it is this application which has been rejected by the Industrial adjudicator vide impugned order dated 26. 07. 2003. Before rejection of the petitioner's application under Section 33 (2) (b) vide impugned order, the industrial Adjudicator had decided the preliminary issue relating to legality and validity of the inquiry against the management of the petitioner corporation vide order dated 26. 08. 2002. In the said order it has been held by the Industrial Adjudicator that not only the inquiry held against the respondent was violative of principles of natural justice but even the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in his report were perverse.