Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J.:- This appeal by special leave arises from a dispute between the Delhi Transport Undertaking and its employee Shri Hari Chand, a former conductor of one of its omnibuses, now Assistant Traffic Inspector. By this appeal the Delhi Transport Undertaking impugns an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi dated April 20, 1962. The facts of the case are as follows : Hari Chand was a conductor on omnibus No. 484 of route No. 21 on March 28, 1960. His omnibus was checked at Kashimiri Gate and it was found that he had on his person five used tickets of 5 np. and six used tickets of 10 np. denominations. This was prohibited by cl. (12) of the Executive Instructions dealing with the duties of conductors, and exposed a guilty conductor to the penalty of dismissal. After enquiry into this conduct the charge was held proved, and on the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer the Traffic Manager proposed to dismiss him from October 31, 1961. As this occurred during the pendency of an industrial dispute the Undertaking by an application dated October 28, 1961 sought the approval of the Tribunal to the proposed order of dismisal u/ S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It appears that a memorandum was issued on Oct. 30, 1961 informing Hari Chand of the order of dismissal and intimating him that he was to be paid one months s wages as required by S. 33(2)(b) of the Act and he should report immediately to the Accounts Officer at the Head Office to receive the payment and to surrender his uniform, badge, identity card, etc. Hari Chand either did not appear to receive payment or when he appeared he was not paid the amount. There is some dispute on this fact to which we shall refer presently. In his turn he filed a complaint under S. 33-A of the Act on November 3, 1961 complaining inter alia that his wages for one month had not been paid. The same day his one months s wages were remitted to him by the Undertaking by Money Order. The complaint of Hari Chand was dismissed by the Tribunal and as there is no appeal against that order we need not refer to it. The Tribunal after hearing the parties delined to accord its approval and dismissed the application. The Tribunal held that action under Executive Instruction No. 12 could not be taken because this Executive Instruction was not made a part of the Standing Order and in the Standing Orders governing the conduct of employees in this Undertaking there was no provision that the possession of used tickets amounted to misconduct of an offence on the part of the conductor. The Tribunal also held that then was no satisfactory proof that one months s wages were actually paid or could be treated as having been tendered prior to the coming into operation of the order of dismissal on October 31, 1961, as required by S. 33(2)(b) of the Act. The Delhi Transport Undertaking questions both these conclusions and the appeal involves only these points.

2. To understand the true legal position it is necessary to refer to some provisions of law under which the Delhi Transport Authority; which was the same as the present Delhi Transport Undertaking, was established and under which the Undertaking no now functions. The Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950 came into operation from March 27, 1950. By that Act a statutory Corporation under the name of the Delhi Road Transport Authority was constituted. By S.39 of the Act it is provided that the Central Government may, after consultation with the Authority give general instructions, including directions relating to the conditions of service and training of the employees their wages and the reserves which the Authority must maintain, etc. Under S. 53, power to make regulations is conferred on the Authority for the administration of the affairs of the Authority and for carrying out its functions under the Act and in particular for providing for the conditions of appointment and service of the servants of the Authority other than some office