Delhi Transport Corporation vs Kusum Pahalajani And Anr.
2000 Latest Caselaw 419 Del

JUDGMENT

A.K.Sikri, J.

1. Rule.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and disposal at this stage.

3. Respondent No. 1 was employed as stenographer with the petitioner/DTC. He . was served with charge-sheet and enquiry was held as a result of which he was removed from service vide order dated 30th September, 1991. Petitioner moved an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 30th September, 1991 itself seeking approval of the action of the petitioner in removing respondent No. 2 from service.

4. The matter was at the stage of evidence of the petitioner and as witness had not come on 19th March, 1996, costs of Rs. 150/- was imposed upon the petitioner and the matter was adjourned to 25th October,1996 for the evidence of the petitioner. On 25th October, 1996, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not in a position to pay the costs imposed on 19th March, 1996 and requested for extension of time for making payment of costs which was imposed. However, the Industrial Tribunal refused to extend the time for making the payment of costs and by impugned order, it dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval of the punishment of removal imposed upon respondent-workman. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order.

5. The way case is dealt by DTC leaves much to be desired. There was a meagre cost of only Rs.150/- which was imposed upon the DTC. This cost was not paid and the petitioner suffered impugned order whereby its application, for approval itself was dismissed and the petitioner could have understood the consequences of the same which were much serious than paying petty amount of Rs.150/-. Moreover, the petitioner has incurred much more expenditure in filing the writ petition against the impugned order and is ultimately made to pay heavy costs as ordered in this petition in penultimate para of the order. On the other hand even the manner in which order is passed by Industrial Tribunal also cannot be appreciated. Industrial Tribunal could give some time for making the payment of costs and at the same time could proceed with the matter to avoid unnecessary adjournment/delay. Even on merits, it would be a doubtful proposition as to whether application under Section 33(2)(b) could be dismissed simply because cost of Rs.150/- was not paid. Once application is filed before the Industrial Tribunal for approval, Industrial Tribunal has to decide the said application on merits. Even otherwise as per Section 11(7) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the power to determine the costs is given to the Tribunal and such costs are recoverable on application made to the appropriate Government by the person entitled as an arrear of land revenue. However, I need not decide this question as to whether order of the Tribunal in dismissing the application for non-payment of costs is a valid order in law inasmuch as Mr. B.S.Charya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/Workman fairly submits that he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of costs as well as direction to the Industrial Tribunal to dispose of the matter within a time bound schedule. Request of Mr. Charya is reasonable inasmuch as application for approval was filed in the year 1991 and moreover it is because of the conduct of the petitioner that the case has been delayed.

6. In these circumstances the impugned order dated 25th October,1996 is set aside subject to petitioner paying a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs. Out of this a sum of Rs. 7,500/- would be paid to the respondent/workman and balance Rs. 2,500/- would be deposited in this Court in the form of Bank Draft in favour of Prime Minister's Relief Fund for Drought Victims to be handed over to the Registrar against receipt. The costs be paid within a period of 4 weeks from today.

7. Parties to appear before the Industrial Tribunal on 13th July, 2000. The petitioner shall produce whatever evidence it has to produce on that date and will not seek any further opportunity. The Tribunal shall decide the application within a period of 3 months from 13th July, 2000.