D.T.C. Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition filed by the managementDelhi Transport Corporation assails the award dated 21.03.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No.I, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No.1505. Under the impugned award, the learned Tribunal concluded that the order dated 14.07.1998 passed by the petitioner, dismissing the respondent from service, being in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 244, had to be treated as ineffective and non-est. In the light of its aforesaid conclusion, the learned Tribunal had directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with full backwages and continuity in service.

(2.) The respondent was appointed as a Conductor with the petitionercorporation on 06.11.1982. It appears that the respondent was inflicted with a commitment of censure vide order dated 18.03.1996, whereupon he raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the learned Tribunal vide reference order dated 01.07.1997. While the said industrial dispute was pending adjudication before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner issued a charge-sheet to the respondent on 26.09.1997, alleging that he had not issued tickets to some passengers despite collecting the requisite fare from them.

(3.) Based on the charge-sheet, a domestic inquiry was held against the respondent, wherein he was found to be guilty and the penalty of removal from service came to be passed against him on 14.07.1998. The respondent then filed an application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act), alleging that the order of termination dated 14.07.1998 was in the teeth of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act and, therefore, it was liable to be treated as non-est and the respondent was entitled to be reinstated in service with full backwages. The petitioner opposed the said claim of the respondent by contending that the respondent was a habitual offender and, therefore, he deserved no sympathy. It was further contended that the dispute, having been raised after an inordinate delay, was liable to be rejected.