Back
GAURANG KANTH
Delhi Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Narendra Kumar – Respondent
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
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 reinst....
The court emphasized the distinct nature of proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) and Section 10 of the I.D. Act, and the limited jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India....
The court emphasized the importance of conducting a fair and just enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, and highlighted the need for substantial evidence to prove alleged misconduct.
The court emphasized the importance of proper evidence and the need for checking cash by the checking staff to establish misconduct. The court also highlighted the limited role of the court under Art....
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 emphasize....
Unauthorized absence without prior permission may amount to misconduct, and the principles of natural justice must be complied with in conducting an enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial D....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
