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.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The present Writ Petition emanates from the judgment dated 16.10.1999 ("Impugned judgment"), passed by the learned Presiding Officer Shri B.B. Chaudhary, Industrial Tribunal II: Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in O.P No. 104/1993 titled as Delhi Transport Corporation Indraprastha Estate Vs. Sh. Ajeet Singh represented by Smt. Birmati and sons and daughters. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Tribunal allowed the application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D. Act") and as a result confirmed the decision taken by respondent No.2 for removal of the deceased husband of the Petitioner, Sh. Ajeet Singh, from service. The petitioner vide the present petition is inter alia praying to set aside the impugned judgment and the deceased husband of the petitioner be continued in service till 09.06.1993. Further, to declare the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal subsequent to 04.08.1999 be declared void. Furthermore, the petitioner is also seeking direction against respondent No.2 to pay all consequential benefits of service including family pension to the petitioner holding that late Sh. Ajeet Singh had not misconducted himself at any stage and continued to be in service till he died on 09.06.1993.

The facts germane to the present writ petition are as follows:

2. At the outset, it is the case of the Petitioner that her husband, Sh. Ajeet Singh joined the services of respondent No.2 as a driver on or around 03.05.1982 as badge no. 11129. In the year 1991, the petitioner's husband suffered a heart attack and thereafter has been continuously suffering from serious cardiac problems since 27.02.1991.

3. Owing to the illness, the petitioner's husband on 29.04.1991, sent an application to respondent No.2 requesting to perform light duty. The respondent no.2 vide its letter dated 09.05.1991 informed Sh. Ajeet Singh that 'there is no provision for drivers for light duty' and hence denied his request. Sh. Ajeet Singh was further ordered to submit an application for grant of 3 months. leave.

4. On 22.07.1991, respondent No. 2 vide a communication, declared the husband of the Petitioner unfit for duty for a period of three months with effect from 30.04.1991 which was going to expire on 29.07.1991. Further, he was also requested to appear before the DTC Medical Board for further checkup, failing which action in the matter would be taken.

5. It is further the case of the petitioner that instead of taking a sympathetic view towards her husband Sh. Ajeet Singh, he was dealt with in the most inhumane manner and respondent No.2 went ahead and denied to assign light duty to the petitioner's husband and called upon him to report for duty.

6. Subsequently, vide letters dated 26.03.1992 and 12.05.1992, addressed to the petitioner's husband, respondent No.2 stated that the petitioner's husband is absenting from duties since 09.03.1992. He was called upon to report immediately within a period of 24 hours and was further also directed to appear before the DTC Medical Board for checkup along with his detailed medical record, in case of illness.

7. On 02.07.1992, Sh. Ajeet Singh was allegedly charge-sheeted and further, an alleged oral enquiry and investigations were conducted by the Depot Manager who acted as the Disciplinary Authority wherein the petitioner's husband was found guilty. Later a Show Cause Notice ("SCN") dated 14.12.1992 was issued by the Disciplinary Authority and one month's salary was also remitted to the petitioner's husband along with the SCN.

8. Respondent No.2 vide its le