The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing charges through sufficient evidence and the consequences of failing to do so under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Jayant Nath, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned order dated 18.03.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal dismissing the petition of the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by which petition the petitioner sought approval for its directions for removal of the respondent from service.

2. The basic facts which lead to filing of the present petition are that the respondent was employed as a Conductor by the petitioner. On 04.05.1989 the respondent was performing his duty as a Conductor on the route of New Delhi-Bulandshahr. Members of the Ticket Checking Staff of the petitioner inspected the Bus. It was found that two passengers were travelling in the Bus on the tickets of less denomination of Rs.2.50/- each valid from Sikandrabad to Dadri. These two passengers had boarded the Bus at Sikandrabad for going to Ghaziabad. The two passengers told the Checking Staff that they had paid fare charges of Rs.5.00/- per ticket to the Conductor whereas they were issued tickets only of the denomination of Rs.2.50. On the basis of the report of the Checking Staff, the Manager of the concerned Depot i.e. BBM Depot, issued charge-sheet dated 15.05.1989 to the respondent for causing financial losses to the employer and for committing irregularity and misconduct within the meaning of Executive Instructions regarding the duties of a Conductor and the Standing Orders governing the conduct of DTC employees. An enquiry was conducted into the charges. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved. The Manager, BBM Depot acted as the Disciplinary Authority and issued a show cause notice on 25.07.1989 to the respondent with proposed punishment of removal from service. The Disciplinary Authority passed the order to confirm punishment of removal from service of the respondent on 29.05.1990 and on the same day remitted one month’s salary by way of Money Order and an appropriate petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was also filed before the Industrial Tribunal.

3. The Industrial Tribunal framed a preliminary issue on 06.03.1991 which reads as under:-

4. Vide order dated 29.03.2001 the issue was decided against the petitioner as the Report of the Enquiry Officer was found perverse inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer admitted that letter Ex.RW-1/2 was received from one of the defaulting passengers before he submitted his findings. This letter was written in response to summons issued to the

“Whether the applicant held a legal and valid enquiry against the respondent according to principles of natural justice?”

said passengers by the Enquiry Officer. While finalising his report the Enquiry Officer did not take into consideration the communication received from the said passenger. The said communication states that the said passenger had asked the Conductor to issue him a ticket only till Dadri. He states that he had informed the Checking Team that he had slept and hence could not get off at his destination point. He has said that the Checking Officer insisted upon him to disclose his address and he had complied with his request. He got down from the Bus at Ghaziabad and the Conductor was not at fault. As the said document was not dealt with at all by the Enquiry Officer despite receipt of the same, the report was held to be perverse.

5. On 29.03.2011 the following additional issues were framed by the Industrial Tribunal

“1) Whether the respondent committed the misconduct as mentioned in the petition and alleged in the charge sheet, issued by the petitioner?

2) Whether the petitioner remitted one month’s wage to the respondent at the time of his removal from service?

3) Relief.”

6. The parties led their evidence. The petitioner filed evidence of Mr.Sanjay Saxena, Depot Manager Shahdara-I, Delhi, the Enquiry Officer AW-1, Mr.Inder Pal Singh, AW-2 and Mr.Kanhaiya Lal, AW-3. Respondent filed his own evidence being RW-1.

7. The Tribunal held issue No.1 a