The court upheld the principle that the Labour Court has the authority to re-appraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion about the guilt or otherwise of the workman. The court also emphasized that the scope of interference by the Court is minimal and can only be invoked in case of irrationality and procedural impropriety.

JUDGMENT :

(Gaurang Kanth, J.) :—

1. The present petition emanates from the award dated 31.03.2010 (“impugned award”) passed by the Learned Presiding officer, Industrial tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No. 18/02.

2. Vide the impugned award, the learned Labour Court was pleased to adjudicate the industrial dispute in favour of the Respondent/Workman and directed reinstatement of the Respondent/Workman with continuity of service. Learned Labour Court, further, directed the Petitioner/Management to pay the Respondent/Workman 40% of the back wages.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION

3. Respondent/Workman was working as a conductor with the Petitioner/Management. On 05.08.1992, while the Respondent/Workman was performing his duty as a conductor in bus no. 6097, Route No. Faridabad Sector 7 to Delhi, the checking staff of the Petitioner/Management intercepted the said bus. During the said inspection, a passenger was found to be travelling without ticket. The checking staff found that the Respondent/Workman failed to issue ticket to the said passenger even after collecting the ticket fare of Rs. 2/- from him. The checking staff recorded the statement of the passenger behind the challan and seized the unpunched tickets from the Respondent/Workman.

4. In pursuance of the report of Sh. Ram Kishan ATI, a Charge sheet dated 26.08.1992 was issued to the Respondent/Workman by the Depot Manager. The said charge sheet has been reproduced herein below:

“You are required to explain, why a disciplinary action should not be taken against you under the provision of Delhi Road Transport Corporation (Amended) Act, 1971, read with Section 15 (2) of Delhi Transport Corporation (Conditions of Appointment and Service Rule, 1952 for the following irregularities).

“On 05-08-1992 you were performing your duty on Bus No. 6097 of Route No. Faridabad Sector 7 to Delhi, checking staff check the said Bus at 21.45 hours at Faridabad Adda and found that a passenger was travelling in your bus from Faridabad Sector 7 to Faridabad Adda without ticket. You did not issue the ticket after the collecting the due fare Rs. 2/- from the passenger.”

This shows your dishonesty in dealing with the corporation business and misappropriation of the revenue. Thus, your above mentioned action tantamount to misconduct within the meaning of para 19 (b)(h)&(m). of the standing order governing the conduct of the DTC employees. One copy of the report on which the charge sheet is attached herewith. One copy of your past record is also annexed herewith and your past record will be considered while passing the final order in the case.

If you desire to hear in person a request to that effect be made in your explanation. Your explanation should reach the undersigned within 10 days of the receipt of this charge sheet by you. In case you want to inspect any of the relevant documents of reliance available on record, you should report to the undersigned within 24 hours of the receipt of this charge sheet by you.

In the event of failure on your part to report to the undersigned inspection of documents within 24 hours and therefore, your explanation to the charge sheet within 10 days, it will be assumed that you have no explanation, to submit in response to this charge sheet and further action in the case pending against you will be taken in accordance with the regulation without any further reference to you.”

5. The enquiry proceeding against the Respondent/workman was commenced on 16.02.1993 before the Enquiry officer. Statement of Sh. Ram Krishan/ATI, Sh. Rajbir Singh/TI, Sh. Sukh Lal/TI and Sh. Ramesh Chand, ATI, were recorded which was followed by the cross-examination of the said individuals by the Respondent/Workman. Statement of Sh. Vijay Pal, the passenger was recorded who was crossed-examined by the Respondent/Workman and the Enquiry Officer.

6. The Respondent/Workman filed his final defence statement on 16.04.1993 wherein he prayed for exoneration from