The reciprocal duties of employers and employees and the provision of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to maintain the status quo and safeguard workmen from victimization.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1. The present petitioner, i.e. Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as the 'petitioner-management') has preferred the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 07.02.2003 and 03.06.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator') in O.P. No. 313/94 under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. The brief facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner-management are that the respondent-workman, i.e. Shri Shish Pal was appointed as retainer crew conductor vide letter No. PLD (2) /78/8271 dated 07.07.1978. On 08.01.1993 while the respondent- workman was on official duty on bus No. 9649 on route No. 305, he was checked by the checking staff of the petitioner-management at 'Fatehpuri' and it was found that:

(i) he received full fare from passengers but issued tickets of lesser denomination.

(ii) the sold tickets were found from his hand block of tickets.

(iii) on physical checking, cash was found in excess by Rs. 14.25.

3. Consequently, on the basis of the report received by the checking officials, the respondent-workman, i.e. Shri Shish Pal was served with a charge-sheet dated 03.02.1993. The then disciplinary authority on not finding any satisfactory reply initiated an enquiry against him through the enquiry officer, i.e. Shri A.S. Bains, who held the respondent- workman guilty of the charges levied against him and forwarded the case to the Depot Manager for punishing the respondent-workman. It was found that the irregularities so committed by the respondent-workman amounted to misconduct within the meaning of paras 19 (b), (f), (h) and (m) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of Delhi Transport Corporation (D.T.C.) employees. The disciplinary authority removed the respondent from service vide order dated 30.09.1994 and remitted full one month's wages to him by way of money order vide receipt No. 1453 and 1454 dated 30.09.1994. The petitioner-management, i.e. D.T.C. filed an application under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Adjudicator for approval of its action against the respondent-workman. However, the respondent-workman denied the allegations so put forward against him.

4. On the pleadings before the Industrial Adjudicator, the preliminary issue, i.e. "Whether the applicant held a legal and valid enquiry against the respondent according to principles of natural justice? (OPA)" was framed and after giving fair opportunities to both the parties, the said issue was decided in favour of the respondent-workman and against the petitioner-management on 07.02.2003.

5. The learned Industrial Adjudicator thereafter on the basis of the pleadings of the parties further framed three issues, i.e.

"(1) Whether the respondent committed the misconduct as alleged against him?

(2) Whether the petitioner remitted full one month's wage to respondent at the time of his dismissal from service?

(3) Relief."

The leaned Industrial Adjudicator after giving fair opportunity of evidence on the aforesaid issues to both the parties passed the impugned order dated 03.06.2003. Hence, giving rise to the present Writ Petition.

6. The learned counsel Shri Sarfaraz Khan appearing on behalf of the petitioner- management, i.e. D.T.C. has submitted that the learned Industrial Adjudicator while passing the order under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 exceeded in its jurisdiction. The power under Section 33(2)(b) of the aforesaid Act is very limited and the learned Industrial Adjudicator while deciding the petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, acted as if he was dealing with a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The order dated 07.02.2003 is a cryptic and non-speaking order. The learned Industrial Adjudicator while writin