The court emphasized the distinct nature of proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) and Section 10 of the I.D. Act, and the limited jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner/Workman is challenging the Award dated 15.10.2003. (‘impugned award’) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No. 144/2001, titled as ‘The Management of M/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and its Workman Shri Yad Ram Yadav.’

RELEVANT FACTS FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION

2. The Petitioner/Workman joined as a conductor with Respondent/Management on 18.08.1978.

3. It is the case of the Respondent/Management that the Petitioner/Workman used to remain absent from his duty unauthorizedly without prior permission between the period 01.01.1992. and 31.12.1992. and has not given any application for leave between the same period.

4. Consequently, on the basis of Report dated 06.04.1993. submitted by Junior Pay Bill Clerk, the Respondent/Management issued a Charge Sheet dated 15.07.1993. to the Petitioner/Workman for remaining absent without permission for 140 days between the period 01.01.1992. and 31.12.1992.. It is stated in the charge sheet that the Petitioner/Workman was on leave without application for 59 days and took unauthorized leave without medical certificate for 81 days. It is further stated in the charge sheet that such leaves show complete negligence and carelessness towards duty and amounts to misconduct under Para No. 4 (II) and 19 (H) & (M) of the Standing Order governing the conduct of the DTC employees. However, thereafter, an amended charge sheet dated 26.08.1993. was issued to the Petitioner/Workman, whereby the charge against him was amended to “absent from duty” instead of “leave without pay”.

5. It is the case of the Respondent/Management that the Petitioner/Workman replied to the Chargesheet vide an undated Letter wherein he did not dispute the leaves taken by him as mentioned in the Chargesheet and thus, admitted the charges levelled against him. However, it is the case of the Petitioner/Workman that he filed reply to the chargesheet dated 15.07.1993. and no reply was filed to the amended chargesheet.

6. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Manager (Traffic). It is the case of the Respondent/Management that during the enquiry, the Petitioner/Workman admitted the charges levelled against him and therefore, the Enquiry Officer did not record statement of any witnesses. Pursuant to enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, Depot Manager, who in turn issued show cause notice dated 19.11.1993. to the Petitioner/Workman to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service.

7. It is the case of the Respondent/Management that since no reply was filed by the Petitioner/Workman to the show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority removed the Petitioner/Workman from the service vide Letter dated 23.09.1994. on the basis of enquiry report and past record of Petitioner/Workman. It is further the claim of the Respondent/Management that the Petitioner/Workman on dismissal was also paid one month wages vide money order dated 23.09.1994..

8. At that time, a dispute between the Respondent/Management and its Workmen relating to the implementation of the IVth Pay Commission report was pending before the learned Labour Court, so the Respondent/Management filed an Approval Application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘I.D. Act’) bearing O.P. No. 297/1994, seeking approval of removal of the Workman from service. Pursuant to hearing to the parties, the learned Labour Court, rejected the approval application filed by the Respondent/Management vide the Award dated 13.02.2003.. The Respondent/Management challenged the said Award dated 13.02.2003. before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 6494/2003 titled as DTC v. Yadram. Vide separate Judgment, this Court allowed the said Writ Petition filed by the Respondent/Management.

9. While the Approval Application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D. Act was pending before the learned Labour Cour