Rejection of an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deems that the order of discharge or dismissal had never been passed, entitling the employee to reinstatement with all benefits available.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. This Court proposes to dispose of the abovementioned two Writ Petitions vide the present common judgment.

(i) In W.P.(C) 3689/2001, titled as `Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Narender Kumar & Anr.', the Delhi Transport Corporation (`Petitioner Management') is challenging the order dated 27.09.2000 (`Impugned Award- I') passed by Sh. B.B. Chaudhary, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in O.P. No. 91/1989 titled as `Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Sh. Narender Kumar'. Vide the Impugned Award-I, the learned Labour Court was pleased to dismiss the approval application filed by the Petitioner Management under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `I.D. Act') seeking approval of the learned Labour Court of its decision of removing the Respondent Workman from service.

(ii) In W.P.(C) 7865/2005, titled as `Narender Kumar Vs Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.', Narender Kumar (`Respondent Workman') is assailing the ex-parte Award dated 21.11.2003 (`Impugned Award-II') passed by Sh. P.S. Teji, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No. 7/2002, titled as `The Management of M/s Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Shri Narinder Kumar'. The factum of rejection of the approval application filed by the Petitioner Management vide Impugned Award-I was not brought to the notice of the learned Labour Court by both the parties. The Respondent Workman remained absent in these proceedings. Hence, the learned Labour Court vide the Impugned Award-II, answered the reference in affirmative holding that the Petitioner Management conducted a valid enquiry and thereby upholding the punishment imposed on the Respondent Workman by the Petitioner Management.

FACTS GERMANE FOR ADJUDICATION OF BOTH WRIT PETITIONS

W.P.(C) 3689/2001, titled as `Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Narender Kumar & Anr.'.

2. The Respondent Workman was working as a conductor with the Petitioner Management. It is the case of the Petitioner Management that on 10.03.1989, the Respondent Workman was positioned as a conductor in bus No. 9047 on route Delhi - Faridabad, when the officials of the Vigilance Department boarded that bus for checking. It is the claim of the Petitioner Management that on checking, the officials of Vigilance Department found out that the Respondent Workman had charged Rs. 4.50/- for luggage of a passenger who was travelling from Delhi to Dussehra Maidan, Faridabad, but had taken Rs. 5.50/- from the passenger and had not issued a ticket for the same. Further, it is the claim of the Petitioner Management that upon confrontation with the passenger, the Respondent Workman admitted his fault and issued an unpunched ticket bearing No. 340-37344 of Rs. 4.50/- to the checking officials whereupon, checking officials also asked the Respondent Workman to return Re. 1/- to the passenger.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner Management that the officials of the Vigilance Department issued a Challan against the Respondent Workman. A complaint was written on behalf of the passenger and it was signed by the passenger, the Respondent Workman and the Traffic supervisor. Pursuant to the issuance of Challan to the Respondent Workman, he sent a Letter dated 13.03.1989 to the Depot Manager of Petitioner Corporation complaining against the Vigilance officials and against the Challan issued against him.

4. On the basis of report of Traffic Supervisor, a charge sheet dated 23.03.1989 was issued against the Respondent Workman by the Disciplinary Authority of Petitioner Management for the alleged act of the Respondent Workman which amounted to misconduct within the meaning of para 2 and 19(b, f, h, & m) of the Standing Order governing the conduct of the DTC employees. It is the claim of the Petitioner Management that an oral enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer following the Rules, Regulations and principles of natural justice. The Respondent Workman