The court's decision was based on the finding that the termination was not with an intention to victimize the workman, and the principles of natural justice in the domestic enquiry were not adjudicated in the Section 33(2)(b) proceedings but should be left to be adjudicated in the industrial dispute if raised under Section 10 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. Delhi Transport Corporation (“DTC") in W.P(C) No.19645/2005 is assailing the orders dated 06.03.1999 & 9.4.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II in O.P. No.422/1993 titled as “Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Bikram Singh” (“impugned orders”). Vide the impugned order dated 06.03.1999, the learned Labour Court was pleased to hold that the domestic enquiry conducted by the DTC was vitiated whereas vide the impugned order dated 09.04.2002, the learned Labour Court refused to grant approval to the DTC for the removal of the respondent Shri Bikram Singh (“workman”) from the service as the DTC failed to establish the commission of alleged misconduct by the workman.

2. In W.P(C) No. 14715/2004, the workman is assailing the action of the DTC in not taking him back in service despite the order dated 09.04.2002 of the learned Labour Court rejecting the approval application filed by the DTC under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”) for removing the workman from the service. The Workman is seeking a direction against the DTC for reinstating him back with full back wages and continuity of service with all consequential benefits.

3. Since both the Writ Petitions are arising out from the order dated 09.04.2002 of the learned Labour Court in O.P. No.422/1993, both these Petitions were taken up together for disposal.

BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

4. The workman was employed with DTC since 29.03.1989 as Driver, Badge No. 19449, Token No. 57374. It was the allegation of the DTC that while he was on duty on bus No.9764, route no.226/ 4A on 22.2.93, the checking staff of mini bus no.525 checked his bus at I. P. College and he was found driving the bus in a drunken condition. Hence a charge-sheet dated 26.02.1993 was issued against him for the alleged misconduct. After conducting the enquiry, DTC terminated the service of the workman vide order dated 15.07.1993 and one month's salary was remitted to the workman under the provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act.

5. At that time an industrial dispute concerning DTC workers' demand for implementation of 4th Pay Commission's report was pending adjudication in the Industrial Tribunal. Hence, on the same date when the order for removal was passed i.e. 15.7.1993, an application was also filed by the DTC before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act seeking approval of the Tribunal of its decision for the removal of the workman from service.

6. The present writ petitions are arising from the said approval Application filed by the DTC under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.

7. At the outset, this Court deems it appropriate to reiterate the scope and ambit of Section 33 (2)(b) of the I.D. Act as pronounced by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shyam Lal decided on 1.7.2010, in W.P.(C) No.3633/2004, which is reproduced herein below:

“11. The scope of jurisdiction of the Industrial Adjudicator under Section 33(2)(b), is only to oversee the dismissal to ensure that no unfair labour practice or victimization has been practiced. If the procedure of fair hearing has been observed and a prima-facie case for dismissal is made out; approval has to be granted. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Adjudicator under Section 33(2)(b) cannot be wider than this. Reference in this regard may be made to Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd. AIR 1978 SC 1004 and Cholan Roadways Limited v. G. Thirugnanasambandam AIR 2005 SC 570. The proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) is not a substitute for an industrial dispute referred for adjudication under Section 10. It is for this reason only that the decision on the application under Section 33(2)(b) does not close the right of the respondent workman to raise an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the ID Act.

12. However, the distinction between adjudication of an industrial dispute referred under Section 10 and an