1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Delhi
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Delhi Transpot vs PARMANAND

High Court Of Delhi|12 July, 2012


* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % W.P. (C) 23569/2005 + Date of Decision: 12th July, 2012 # Delhi Transpot Corporation Petitioner ! Through: Mr. Abhinav Prakash, Advocate Versus $ PARMANAND …Respondent Through: Ms. Kittu Bajaj, Advocate CORAM:
The petitioner (DTC) by way of this writ petition has sought to assail the award dated 7th October, 2004 passed by Labour Court in I.D. No. 144/98 whereby the respondent-workman, who was employed as a conductor with DTC and was removed from service by the management for his having committed an act of misconduct, was ordered to be re-instated in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
2. The facts which led to the filing of this petition may briefly be set out. The respondent had joined the petitioner-DTC on 7th October, 1982 as a conductor. On 2nd June, 1995 the respondent was charge- sheeted on the allegations that on 13th November, 1994 while he was performing his duty on DTC bus going from Delhi to Bewar checking was conducted by the DTC staff at Khurja and they found that four passengers were travelling in the bus without tickets and the respondent had not issued them tickets even after collecting money from them. He filed his reply to the charge-sheet and refuted those allegations. Enquiry was then initiated against the respondent but the enquiry officer exonerated him of the charges levelled against him. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer issued show cause notice to the respondent calling upon him as to why he be not removed from service. The respondent submitted his reply dated 15th June, 1995. Not satisfied with the reply of the respondent-workman, the Disciplinary Authority ordered his removal from service on 15th June, 1995 itself.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent raised an industrial dispute which in due course came to be referred to the Labour Court.
4. The respondent-workman filed a statement of claim before the Labour Court claiming that his services had been illegally despite the fact that the enquiry officer had found him innocent on the conclusion of the enquiry and further that he was not afforded any hearing by the Disciplinary Authority before awarding him the punishment of removal from service ignoring the report of the enquiry officer.
5. The petitioner-management filed its written statement and refuted the allegations made by the respondent-workman and claimed that he was removed from service since he had committed a serious misconduct by not issuing tickets to four passengers who were travelling in his bus although he had collected the money from them.
6. The leaned Labour Court has observed in the impugned award that the authorised representative of the DTC had frankly admitted that the disciplinary authority had removed the workman on the basis of past record even though in the enquiry the charge against him had not been proved and also that no hearing was given to the workman by the disciplinary authority before taking a decision contrary to the findings of the enquiry officer holding the respondent-workman not guilty of the charge levelled against him. It has also been observed that no evidence had been adduced by the management in Court also to establish its case. These observations in the impugned award were not refuted on behalf of the petitioner either in the writ petition or even during the course of hearing by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact, in the writ petition it had been averred that the Disciplinary Authority had acted on the opinion of the enquiry officer which means there was really no disagreement with the enquiry officer’s findings that charge against the respondent-workman was not established and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Disciplinary Authority to order removal of the respondent from the services of DTC and consequently its decision to that effect was totally an arbitrary decision. The petitioner has not even placed on record any order whereby the Disciplinary Authority had given either its tentative or final reasons of disagreement with the enquiry officer’s report exonerating the respondent-workman of the charge of misconduct. In these circumstances, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned award being perverse has to be set aside cannot be accepted as it could not be justified from any material on record. The Labour Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the punishment of removal from its services awarded to the respondent-workman by the petitioner-management was illegal and arbitrary. This Court in the facts and circumstances of this case finds no good reason to interfere with the impugned award in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, which even otherwise is of limited scope whenever the challenge is to the awards of industrial adjudicators and more particularly in cases of disciplinary proceedings.
7. This writ petition, therefore, being devoid of any merit is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
P.K. BHASIN, J JULY 12, 2012
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Delhi Transpot vs PARMANAND


High Court Of Delhi

12 July, 2012