* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 774/2011
% Date of Decision: September 22, 2011
Delhi Transport Corporation ....Petitioner
Through Mr. Manish Garg and Mr. S.L. Sain,
Advocates.
VERSUS
Satpal .....Respondent
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
SANJIV KHANNA, J.:
CM No. 17755/2011 (for condonation of Delay) and LPA No. 774/2011 This is an application for condonation of delay of 15 days in preferring the appeal.
2. Before issuing notice on the application for condonation of delay, we have thought it apt to deal with the matter on merits.
3. Delhi Transport Corporation has filed the present intra court appeal assailing the order dated 8th July, 2011, dismissing their writ petition and upholding the award of the Labour Court LPA 774/2011 Page 1 of 5 dated 1st November, 2010. The Labour Court has set aside the removal of the respondent conductor and directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service. It has further directed that the respondent would be paid a lump sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards back wages.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge have mis- appreciated the evidence and in fact the respondent had interpolated the records while serving as a conductor in respect of the bus trip from Delhi to Hardwar. It is submitted that the tickets were issued from Delhi to Hardwar but the record was interpolated as tickets were shown as issued from Delhi to Meerut and thus the respondent had committed fraud resulting in financial loss to the appellant. The respondent had embezzled fare which was paid by the passengers.
5. The allegation relates to 31st July/1st August, 1993. There were four charges/allegations against the respondent. The enquiry officer has, however, found that the tickets from serial no. 624-29910 to 29919 which were torn more than required, were issued by some other conductor and, therefore, the enquiry officer LPA 774/2011 Page 2 of 5 gave benefit of doubt to the respondent. Another allegation leveled against the respondent was that he had torn half counter foil of tickets as if the same were issued for journey from Delhi to Meerut but in fact these were issued for Delhi to Hardwar.
6. The enquiry officer has recorded that during question- answer the respondent was seen satisfied with the answers given to his questions. This by no stretch can be treated as evidence or material against the respondent. Passengers were not examined and have not given any statement against the respondent. The charge was sustained only on the ground that the ticket counterfoil was torn and had overwriting. Ticket had to be torn and given to the passenger and what remained with the Conductor was the counterfoil. The respondent in his statement had stated that he had made tickets for Delhi to Hapur but due to change of duty he had to change the ticket from Delhi to Meerut. The change of duty is admitted but the enquiry officer held that the reply did not appear to be proper and the respondent was not required to tear the tickets counterfoils which were already half torn as tickets were issued. The enquiry officer had further held that if due to change in the route and the respondent/conductor LPA 774/2011 Page 3 of 5 was required to further tear the already half torn ticket or change them, he should have taken written permission of the higher officers. This is not material or evidence which establishes the charge of fraud and embezzlement justifying the serious penalty of removal. Failure to take approval of seniors is different and cannot be equated with the charge of fraud/embezzlement.
7. The Labour Court examined the evidence including the statement of the witness of the appellant management MW2 Tara Chand, who had examined the documents and after examination had made the complaint with regard to the interpolation of record. His statement before the labour court has been thoroughly scrutinized and considered. He accepted the contention of the respondent conductor that bus No. 9403 had broken down. The passengers who had been issued tickets had to be again issued tickets in the substitute bus as a result counter foils of the tickets had to be torn. The labour court observed the evidence against the respondent conductor far too sketchy. There was no evidence or material of credence. The action of the management was based on mere suspicion.
LPA 774/2011 Page 4 of 5
8. It may be noted that the respondent conductor was appointed in 1978 and had worked till 1993 and in the meanwhile he has retired. Labour Court has considered all aspects and has directed reinstatement but did not grant full back wages.
9. In view of the aforesaid, there is no justification to issue notice on the application for limitation and, accordingly, the application for limitation stands rejected and as an evitable corollary, the appeal also stands dismissed in limine.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE September 22, 2011 Kkb/VKR LPA 774/2011 Page 5 of 5