KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by a common order dated 11.12.2017 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 8184/2004 and W.P.(C) No. 18045/2006.

(2.) Before the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties can be considered, we deem it appropriate to outline some of the relevant facts, which have given rise to the filing of the present appeal. The appellant herein was employed as a Conductor with the respondent/DTC since the year 1984. An incident had taken place on 13.06.1992 when the appellant was on duty on Bus No. 9130, which was travelling from Delhi to Bareilly. The checking staff of the Corporation signaled the bus to stop, but the Bus driver did not stop. The Bus was chased. Certain allegations were levelled against the appellant. He was served with a chargesheet on 18.06.1992 on the ground that there were irregularities which constituted misconduct. An inquiry was conducted against the appellant on 10.08.1992. As per the appellant, the principles of natural justice were not followed. The charges were proved without following the due process of law. The entire inquiry was completed within 3-4 days. An order of removal was passed on 17.09.1992. The respondent, thereafter made an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of their action of removal, which was declined. In the meanwhile, the appellant raised a substantive industrial dispute. The Presiding Officer allowed the prayer of the applicant and directed reinstatement of the appellant with 50% back wages. The Award was challenged by the DTC. The Single Judge in the order of 11.12.2017 partly allowed the writ petition of the DTC. The Award was modified. Para 23 and 24 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge read as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellant has placed strong reliance on the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in LPA 533/2017 titled Mahender Pal vs. Delhi Transport Corporation decided on 05.12.2018. Learned counsel submits that the Division Bench while allowing the appeal observed that his removal from service was a result of an unfair and unjust inquiry and the DTC was directed to reinstate the appellant in service with full back wages. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment in the case of Mahender Pal (supra) would apply to the facts of the case with all force.