The judgment emphasizes the importance of evidence in proving misconduct, the application of the principle of 'Res ipsa loquitur', and the role of the Tribunal in evaluating evidence and applying relevant legal provisions.

MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGMENT)

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/workman against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.02.2013 whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal and held that the denial of approval to the respondent/DTC under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial management filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) before the Industrial Tribunal seeking approval.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent and was working as a Conductor. While he was on duty on Bus No. 9096 on Route No. 467 on 14.10.1991, the checking staff consisting of ATI Om Prakash and Kishan Lal boarded the bus at 6:15 hours at Yamuna Bazar. They found that there were 16 passengers in the bus and although the fare was collected, tickets were not issued to any of them. They formed two groups of those 16 passengers of 5 and 11 and recorded the statement of one from each group. They also seized 16 unpunched tickets from the petitioner. On the basis of their report, an enquiry for the alleged misconduct was held against the petitioner. The charge-sheet was issued which was duly replied by the petitioner. During the enquiry, the petitioner was given the assistance of a coworker and on his request, the enquiry was conducted in the presence of Labour Welfare Officer. The statement of the witnesses was recorded and they were duly cross-examined by the petitioner/workman. The petitioner/workman also examined one witness in his defence. The enquiry officer held him guilty. After issuing show-cause notice and considering his reply, an order of dismissal from service dated 22.07.1992 was passed against the workman. Since an undated dispute raised by the Union was pending adjudication, the Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as “the ID Act”) was bad in law.

3. The Tribunal framed a preliminary issue covering validity of the disciplinary enquiry. The record shows that the Tribunal had asked the respondent to lead evidence to prove the enquiry report, but it failed to examine the enquiry officer. After closing the management’s evidence on the preliminary issue, the Tribunal set aside the enquiry by its order dated 04.07.1996 on the ground that there was no evidence to prove that the enquiry conducted was valid and legal.

4. Thereafter, the management was given an opportunity to prove the allegations of misconduct against the workman and an issue to this effect was framed. Both the parties led their evidences before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the application of respondent seeking approval by its order dated 06.11.2000 on the ground that the evidence on record was insufficient to prove the misconduct. This order was impugned by the management before the learned Single Judge and learned Single Judge after discussing the scope of Section 33 (2) (b) of the ID Act and after considering the materials on record, concluded that there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the misconduct. The learned Single Judge relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Lalla Ram vs. D.C.M. Chemical Works ltd. and another, 1978(3) SCC 1. He also noticed that the finding of the Industrial Tribunal was contrary to the settled proposition of law as held in State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh AIR 1977 SC 1512 and DTC vs. N.L.Kakkar, Presiding officer and Others 2004(73) DRJ 568. Learned Single Judge has held as under:-

9. In the case in hand, there is no finding of the Tribunal that there was victimization or an unfair labour practice meted out. The Tribunal re-appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that since the passengers were not summoned, there was no corroboration to the statement of the checking official AW1, the statements of the two passengers were not counter signed by the Conductor, if Respondent No. 1 could sign the challan under protest he could have also signed the statements of the passengers under protest and thus he