W.P. (C) No. 6414/2004

Page 1 of 11

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Judgment delivered on: December 23, 2015

%

W.P.(C) No.6414/2004

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sarfaraz Khan and Mr. Atul Rahman,

Advocates.

versus

SHISH PAL SINGH

.....Respondent

Through:

Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

JUDGMENT

I. S. MEHTA, J.

1.

The present petitioner, i.e., Delhi Transport Corporation

(hereinafter

‘petitioner-management’)

has preferred the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the

Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders

dated 07.02.2003 and 03.06.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred

to as the ‘learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator’) in O.P. No.

313/94 under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2015:DHC:10530

W.P. (C) No. 6414/2004

Page 2 of 11

2.

The brief facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner-management

are that the respondent-workman, i.e., Shri Shish Pal was appointed as

retainer crew conductor vide letter No. PLD (2)/78/8271 dated

07.07.1978. On 08.01.1993 while the respondent-workman was on

official duty on bus No. 9649 on route No 305, he was checked by the

checking staff of the petitioner-management at „Fatehpuri‟ and it was

found that:

(i)

he received full fare from passengers but issued tickets of

lesser denomination,

(ii)

the sold tickets were found from his hand block of tickets,

(iii)on physical checking, cash was found in excess by Rs. 14.25

3.

Consequently, on the basis of the report received by the checking

officials, the respondent-workman, i.e., Shri Shish Pal was served with a

charge-sheet dated 03.02.1993. The then disciplinary authority on not

finding any satisfactory reply initiated an enquiry against him through the

enquiry officer, i.e., Shri A.S. Bains, who held the respondent-workman

guilty of the charges levied against him and forwarded the case to the

Depot Manager for punishing the respondent-workman. It was found that

the irregularities so committed by the respondent-workman amounted to

misconduct within the meaning of paras 19 (b), (f), (h) and (m) of the

Standing Orders governing the conduct of Delhi Transport Corporation

(D.T.C.) employees. The disciplinary authority removed the respondent

2015:DHC:10530

W.P. (C) No. 6414/2004

Page 3 of 11

from service vide order dated 30.09.1994 and remitted full one month‟s

wages to him by way of money order vide receipt No. 1453 and 1454

dated 30.09.1994. The petitioner-management, i.e., D.T.C. filed an

application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

before the Industrial Adjudicator for approval of its action against the

respondent-workman. However, the respondent-workman denied the

allegations so put forward against him.

4.

On the pleadings before the Industrial Adjudicator, the preliminary

issue, i.e., “Whether the applicant held a legal and valid enquiry against

the respondent according to principles of natural justice?(OPA)” was

framed and after giving fair opportunities to both the parties, the said

issue was decided in favour of the respondent-workman and against the

petitioner-management on 07.02.2003.

5.

The learned Industrial Adjudicator thereafter on the basis of the

pleadings of the parties further framed three issues, i.e.,

“(1) Whether the respondent committed the misconduct as alleged against

(3) Relief”

2015:DHC:10530

W.P. (C) No. 6414/2004

Page 4 of 11

and the leaned Industrial Adjudicator after giving fair opportunity of

evidence on the aforesaid issues to both the parties passed the impugned

order dated 03.06.2003. Hence, giving rise to the present Writ Petition.

6.

The learned counsel Shri Sarfaraz Khan appearing on behalf of the

petitioner-management, i.e.