Back
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SANJEEV NARULA
Delhi Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Rameshwar Dayal (Deceased) Through Lrs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. - The present Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) are arising out of the common judgment passed in W.P.(C.) No.6347/2006 titled D.T.C. Vs. Rameshwar Dayal & Another; and W.P.(C.) No. 2631/2007 titled Rameshwar Dayal Thru L.Rs Vs. D.T.C..
2. The facts of the case reveal that one Rameshwar Dayal- who is represented by his Legal Representatives (LRs) as he was no more, was appointed as a Conductor on 07.01.1973 in the service of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). He was unauthorisedly absent from duty w.e.f. 31.03.1991 to 14.04.1991 (for a period of 15 days). The competent Disciplinary Authority- on account of his unauthorized absence, issued a charge-sheet on 20.06.1991 and the deceased employee was granted time to file reply within fifteen days. The deceased employee did file a reply on 21.07.1991. The Disciplinary Authority- not being satisfied with the reply filed by the deceased employee, appointed the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report dated 24.09.1991 and a copy of the said report was also served to the deceased employee on 25.10.1991. The deceased employee was inflicted the punishment of removal fro
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act are distinct from the proceedings under Section 10, and the findings und....
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....
Section 17 B of I.D.Act reads as payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts.
The necessity of conducting a fair domestic inquiry and the implications of procedural irregularities, such as the non-supply of inquiry reports, in determining the justifiability of dismissal under ....
The court emphasized that the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) is limited to assessing victimization, not the detailed legality of a domestic inquiry.
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
