The finding of fact by the Industrial adjudicator can only be interfered with if patently illegal.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The case at hand is a Writ Petition preferred under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner in the present case is aggrieved by the Award dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. II in I.D. No. 17/1993 titled as The management of M/s Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Shakti Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi and Shri Naubat Ram through Delhi State Electricity Board Employees Union 626, Natra Neel Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "impugned award").

2. Vide the impugned award, learned Labour Court has held that a fair enquiry had been conducted against the Petitioner in which he had been found guilty of misappropriation of funds. Consequently, learned Labour Court, upheld the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and held that the Petitioner was not entitled for any relief from the learned Labour Court. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby setting aside the impugned award.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

3. The Petitioner, Shri Naubat Ram, had joined the services of Delhi Power Company Limited (the erstwhile Delhi Electricity Supply and Undertaking) as a junior clerk on 20.03.1970 and was promoted as a senior clerk on 28.8.1979.

4. During his service, the Respondent management issued a chargesheet dated 03.04.1986 against the Petitioner with the following charges:

"Shri Naubat Ram, Sr. Clerk while working as such on 1.10.83 at Counter No.509, Distt. LWR misappropriated a sum of Rs.200/- out of Rs.750/- paid to him as consumption charges by one Shri A.C. Sharma son of regd. Consumer in respect of electricity Bill pertaining to K.Kos. 736767 and 736651, Thus he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in violation of Rule 3(1) (i) & (ii) of COS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as detailed in the statement of allegations attached,"

5. The Respondent/Management conducted an enquiry against the Petitioner in accordance with the DESU (DMC) Service (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The enquiry officer submitted a detailed enquiry report holding that the charges levelled against the Petitioner workman as 'proved'. Disciplinary Authority accepted the recommendation of the enquiry officer and imposed a penalty of reduction in rank of the Petitioner to the grade of Junior Clerk initially for a period of two years, which was reduced to one year upon an appeal being preferred by the Petitioner to the Appellate Authority.

6. Aggrieved by his demotion, the Petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute. Vide reference No. F.24 (4551)/92-Lab dated 08.01.1993, the Secretary (Labour) Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi referred the dispute between the management of M/s Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and the Petitioner for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal with the following term of reference:

"Whether the penalty of reduction in rank to the grade of Jr. Clerk for a period of one year, imposed upon on Naubat Ram is illegal and/ or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?"

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues on 17.10.1994:

"(1) Whether the dispute has been validly and properly espoused by the union as alleged in the written statement? 1f so, its effect?

(2) Whether BSEB Employees Union has locus standi to raise the dispute? If so, its effect?

(3) Whether the employees of DESU are not the members of the Municipal Employees Union? If so, its effect?

(4) As per terms of reference."

8. Subsequently, on 17.10.1995, the following additional issue was also framed by the learned Labour Court:

"4-A Whether the enquiry conducted by the management was not fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice? If so, to what effect?"

9. In order to prove his ca