Rajindar Sachar, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition filed by the management of the Delhi Transport Undertaking (hereinafter called the undertaking ) against the order of the Labour Court, Delhi, dated February 8, 1969, by which it rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approving the removal of the respondent No. 2 from the service.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 was originally employed as a driver under the Delhi Road Transport Authority (hereinafter called the Transport Authority) which had been constituted under the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950. Respondent No. 2 later on became an B employee under the Undertaking of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) by virtue of the Second Schedule to the Delhi Municipal Corporation act, 1957, (hereinafter called the Corporation Act) read with Sections 511, 516, 53 and 64, An enquiry was started against respondent No. 2 and he was served with a charge sheet on 7-8-1962. After holding an enquiry a show cause notice was issued to respondent No. 2 by the Assistant General Manager on 8-1-1963. Cause was shown by respondent No. 2, but the Assistant General Manager was not satisfied with the reply and decided to remove respondent No. 2, from service with effect from 16-5-1963. As there was an Industrial Dispute pending against the petitioner an application was made by the petitioner before respondent No. 1 for approval of the action of removal as provided under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Respondent No. 1 by the impugned order has held that the application could only have been "made by the employer who acco-ding to respondent No. 1 was the General Manager, Transport. Another objection taken by respondent No. 2, before respondent No. 1 and which has also been accepted by respondent No. 1 was that respondent No. 2 had been appointed by the General Manager of the Transport Authority and, therefore, could have been removed only by the General Manager of the Undertaking. Respondent No. 1 accepted this objection and has held that the removal of respondent No. 2 by the Assistant General Manager was invalid and ineffective in view of the first proviso to Section 95 (1) of the Corporation Act. Respondent No. 1 in view of these two legal grounds did not consider it necessary to decide on merits the enquiry against respondent No. 2. He consequently by the impugned order rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved against that decision the petitioner filed this writ petition in this court.

( 3 ) THE matter in the first instance came before Deshpande J. who noticed that there was a conflict of views in the decision taken by Tatachari J. in C. W. 1234 of 1967 decided on 16-5-1969; whereby his lordship had held that the delegation made by the General Manager to the Assistant Genera] Manager was permissible and valid and the decision of the Division Bench of Punjab High Court sitting in Circuit at Delhi consisting of Mehar Singh C. J. and Mahajan J. reported as 1967 S. L. R. 56 wherein they had taken a contrary view. In view of this Deshpande J. by his order dated 16-9-1970 referred this matter for consideration by a larger bench. The matter thereafter came up before my lord the Chief Justice and Deshpande J. who in view of the conflicing decisions mentioned above and in view of the importance of the question involved referred the case to a larger bench. It is in these circumstances that this matter has been placed before us for decision.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 has held that the Assistant General Manager who filed the application before it was not an employer and was, therefore, not competent to move the application tor approval. Now Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that an application in this behalf may be moved by an employer. An employer is defined in Section 2 (g) (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act as in relation to an industry carried on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document