JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The present petition emanates from the order dated 15.09.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. II, Tis Hazari court, Delhi (“Impugned Order -I”) and order dated 03.10.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- II, Karkardooma Courts Delhi (“Impugned Order-II”). The Impugned Order-I and Impugned Order-II would collectively be also referred to as Impugned Orders, where so required. The Petitioner hereby is impugning the legality of the aforesaid Impugned Orders and is seeking issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the said Impugned Orders.

2. A brief factual matrix shows that the Petitioner filed an Application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“I.D. Act”) seeking the approval of the learned Labour Court for terminating the services of the Respondent. Learned Labour Court adjudicated on the issue of validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the Petitioner/Management and vide Impugned Order-I held that the said domestic enquiry was conducted after following the principles of natural justice and therefore there is no fault in the enquiry proceedings. However, after analyzing the evidence before the enquiry officer, the learned Labour Court held that there was no evidence before the enquiry officer to hold the Respondent guilty of the alleged misconduct. In view of the same, the validity of the enquiry was decided against the Petitioner. Later, vide Impugned Order-II, the learned Labour Court dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner/Management under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act on the ground that there existed no evidence before the enquiry officer to establish misconduct on the part of the Respondent.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT DISPUTE

3. It is an admitted fact that the Respondent was appointed by the Petitioner as a Conductor (Retainer crew) w.e.f. 21.06.1984 on monthly rates of pay and was allotted badge no. 21355. In November, 1991, while the Respondent was performing his duty in bus no. 8993 Route no. 2, an inspection was conducted on the aforesaid bus at about 12:05 hours. During the said inspection, the checking officials of the Petitioner detected irregularity with respect to the ticket collection by the Respondent i.e. re-selling of a pre-sold ticket to a lady passenger. A challan memo was filed on 29.11.1991 containing the alleged episode.

4. On the basis of the Challan memo filed by the inspecting official Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Respondent was served with the charge sheet dated 17.12.1991 for the alleged misconduct committed by him within the meaning of para 19(b)(f) & (h) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of the DTC employees. Content of the aforesaid charge sheet is extracted below:

“That on the basis of report of Sh. Jagdish Parasad A.T.I, T.No. 22374. He was served charge sheet no. NND/A.I. (T)/Checking -204/91/791 dated 17.12.91. The following charges were levelled against him:

1) You resold a ticket already sold by the advance booker to the passenger.

2) You tried to mislead the officials.

3) You caused financial losses to the Corporation.

4) You tarnished the reputation of the Corporation.”

5. The disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the Respondent on 10.07.1992 which concluded on 14.07.1992. During the course of the disciplinary enquiry, the charges levelled against the Respondent were found to be proved by the enquiry officer and as a consequence, Respondent was removed from the service on 20.10.1992.

6. The Petitioner moved an application under section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act before the learned Labour Court seeking approval of their action of removing the Respondent from the service.

7. The Respondent opposed the aforesaid application/petition and submitted before the learned Labour Court that the enquiry was not conducted as per the procedure laid down in the Circular dated 28.05.1980 issued by the Petitioner. Further, that the enquiry officer was biased and relie