Bilori v. Dtc

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J MAY 25, 2009 dk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #28 + LPA 185/2009 % Decided on : 25th May, 2009 BILORI ..... Appellant Through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal with Ms. Neelam Tiwari, Advocates. versus DTC ..... Respondent Through Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? AJIT PRAKASH SHAH, CJ (in Court) The appellant joined as Conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "DTC") in 1983. The appellant was served with a charge sheet alleging that while he was on duty on 4.10.1988 on bus No. 9467 plying from Delhi to Ballabhgarh, there was a checking and it was found that he had not issued tickets to a group of passengers who were traveling from old Faridabad to Ballabhgarh after taking Rs.4.50 from them. It was alleged that the appellant admitted his fault and issued three unpunched tickets No. 25-27518 to 25-27520 of Rs.1.50 Paise each. It was also alleged that the statements of the passengers were recorded by the checking staff but the Conductor declined to counter sign the same. Thus the appellant alleged to have committed irregularities which amount to misconduct within the meaning of para 2(II) and 19(b)(f)(h) & (m) of the standing orders governing the conduct of DTC employees. The enquiry officer gave his finding against the appellant and thereafter he was served with the show cause notice and his services were terminated w.e.f. 5.5.1989. 2. At the time of removal of the appellant from service, DTC workers" demand for implementation of IVth Pay Commission"s report was pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribuanl and therefore the respondent filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") for approval of the Industrial Tribunal for its decision for removal of the appellant from service. The Industrial Tribunal vide its order dated 20.1.2000 passed in O.P. No. 36/89 granted approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act for removal of the appellant from service. The appellant thereafter raised an industrial dispute which came to be referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal II vide Reference No. F.24(4713)/2000- Lab. / 3138-42 dated 6.2.2001. The terms of reference were to the following effect:- "Whether the punishment imposed upon Sh. Bilori by the management vide their orders dated 5.5.1989 and / or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" 3. The Tribunal framed the following issues: "(i) Whether the punishment imposed upon the workman vide order dated 5.5.1989 is illegal and unjustified? (ii) Terms of reference." 4. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal held that the punishment imposed upon the appellant by the management vide order dated 5.5.1989 is not illegal and unjustified and the he is not entitled for any relief. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is rather cryptic and reads as follows: "7. It is admitted case of the parties that an approval application has been moved before this Tribunal and this Tribunal found the charges proved against the workman and has granted the approval for removal o f workman. 8. Consequently, keeping in view the fact that the approval of removal of workman has already been granted by this Tribunal and judgment of Hon"ble High Court in case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors. (reported in 2005 LLR 190), it is held that the punishment imposed upon the workman vide order dated 5.5.1989 is not illegal and unjustified….." 5. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred WP(C) No. 12616/2006 which came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge by order under appeal. The learned single Judge held that the appellant has not challenged the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal