Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
Delhi Transport Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Rameshwar Dayal (Deceased) Through Lrs. - Respondent
LPA 465 of 2023 and CM APPL. 29241-29243 of 2023 and LPA 473 of 2023 and CM APPL. 29724-29726 of 2023
Decided On : 01-11-2023
Industrial Disputes Act - Unauthorized Absence - Section 33(2)(b) - Section 10 - [INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT] - The court discussed the scope of Section 33(2)(b) and Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing that the purpose of Section 33(2)(b) is to prevent victimization of an employee and that the findings under this section are prima facie and not final. The court also highlighted the distinction between the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) and Section 10, emphasizing that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) cannot be a substitute for the proceedings under Section 10. The court further discussed the legal principles related to victimization, the scope of inquiry, and the disposal of Section 33(2)(b) proceedings. The court upheld the reinstatement of the workman with back wages and other benefits based on the findings of the Labour Court.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased employee, a conductor at Delhi Transport Corporation, was charge-sheeted for unauthorized absence and subsequently removed from service. The employer's application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was rejected, and a writ petition was filed challenging the rejection. The workman was reinstated with back wages and other benefits based on the findings of the Labour Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the reinstatement of the workman with back wages and other benefits based on the findings of the Labour Court. The court also dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the employer's application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the domestic inquiry, the misconduct of the workman, and the application of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the findings of the Labour Court, which determined that the workman was not given a full opportunity to defend himself, and the charges against him were not proved. The court also emphasized that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) cannot be a substitute for the proceedings under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Final Decision: The court upheld the reinstatement of the workman with back wages and other benefits and dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the employer's application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
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 from service by order dated 17.01.1992.
3. The appellant/DTC on 17.01.1992 preferred an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) and the said application was rejected by the Labour Court on 24.02.2001.
4. The appellant/DTC - being aggrieved by the order rejecting the application preferred under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act, preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C.) No. 5860/2001.
5. The workman also challenged his removal by way of I.D. No.101/2001 on 17.10.2001. A written-statement was filed on 09.07.2001, and finally, an Award was passed on 31.05.2003 directing reinstatement in service along with back wages and continuity of service. The Award was published on 14.07.2003 and was declared enforceable w.e.f. 13.08.2003.
6. The facts further reveal that the writ petition being W.P.(C.) No.5860/2001 preferred by the DTC being aggrieved by order dated 24.02.2001 by which the application preferred under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act was rejected, resulted in remand order dated 17.11.2005. The DTC also preferred a writ petition subsequently being W.P.(C.) No.6347/2006 against the Award dated 31.05.2003 by which the workman was reinstated with back wages.
7. As already stated earlier, in W.P.(C.) No. 5860/2001, the matter was remanded back, and finally, an Award was passed on 21.02.2007 allowing the application preferred under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act.
8. The LRs of the deceased employee challenged the Award dated 21.02.2007 by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C.) No. 2631/2007 before this Court. Meaning thereby, two petitions arising out of the same dispute were pending before this Court being:
(a) W.P.(C.) No. 6347/2006 against the Award dated 31.05.2003 by which the workman was reinstated with back wages and the same was preferred against the LRs of the deceased workman as the workman had expired during the pendency of the proceedings; and
(b) W.P.(C.) No. 2631/2007 preferred by the LRs of deceased Rameshwar Dayal against the Award dated 21.02.2007 by which the application preferred under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act was allowed by the Labour Court.
9. The learned Single Judge by a common judgment has dismissed the first writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 6347/2006 preferred by the DTC against the Award dated 31.05.2003, meaning thereby, upholding reinstatement of the workman in service with back wages and other consequential benefits; and the second writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 2631/2007 which was arising out of the application preferred under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act has been dismissed as infructuous.
10. The operative paragraph of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge - as contained in paragraphs 33 to 50, reads as under:
"33. This Court had heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for
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
