Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shyam Singh S/O Shri Tara Chand And ... on 29 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: 114 (2004) DLT 343
Author: M B Lokur
Bench: M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 8th November, 2001 passed by the Labour Court in ID No.78/96.
2. The question that was referred for adjudication is as follows:-
Whether the removal of Sh. Shyam Singh from service is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
3.The allegation against the Respondent/workman, a bus conductor with the Petitioner, was that on 6th June, 1993, he collected the fare from four passengers who were on a journey in the bus but did not issue tickets to them. This was discovered when the bus was checked for ticket less passengers by the checking staff of the Petitioner that is, Inder Singh and Mahender Singh who also gave a report about the incident.
4. On the basis of the above report, the Respondent/workman was issued a charge sheet on 24th June, 1993 and after a departmental enquiry, his services were terminated by an order dated 18th July, 1994.
5.The Petitioner filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (being OP No.47/96) seeking approval of termination of the Respondent/workman's services. The orders passed in the approval application are the subject matter of WP (C) No.1420 of 2002, which has separately been decided today. In that case, I have held that the departmental inquiry conducted against the Respondent/workman was not vitiated and approval was granted for terminating the services of the Respondant/workman.
6. The Respondent/workman independently raised an industrial dispute and the question formulated above was referred for adjudication.
7.As a preliminary issue, the learned Labour Court decided to determine whether the domestic enquiry held against the Respondent/workman was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. By an order dated 5th July, 2000, it was held that the domestic enquiry was vitiated. This conclusion appears to be based entirely on the order passed on a similar issue framed in OP No.47/96 holding the departmental inquiry to be vitiated. In any case, the order dated 5th July, 2000 is not under challenge before me and so it is not necessary to comment on its correctness.
8. Thereafter, the Petitioner was given an opportunity by the learned Labour Court for leading additional evidence to prove the misconduct of the Respondent/workman.
9. The Petitioner filed the affidavit of Inder Singh who also entered the witness box as MW-2. Mahender Singh had died in the meanwhile, but Inder Singh identified his signatures on all the relevant documents. On his part, the Respondent/workman examined only himself.
10. While passing the impugned Award in favor of the Respondent/workman, the learned Labour Court gave three reasons for setting aside the termination order. Firstly, the learned Labour Court was of the view that the Petitioner failed to prove its case by its failure to examine any of the passengers as its witnesses. Secondly, the learned Labour Court relied on the orders passed in OP No.47/96 and the statement of two passengers who had appeared as witnesses in that matter to disbelieve the case put up by the Petitioner. Finally, it was said that no reliance could be placed on the affidavit filed by Inder Singh as his examination-in-chief because in his cross-examination, Inder Singh stated that he had signed and filed the affidavit without going through it and that he did not know its contents.
11. As far as the first reason given by the learned Labour Court is concerned, it has been held on more than one occasion that it is not mandatory to examine the passengers as witnesses to bring home the guilt of a conductor. (See for example State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh, Transport Corporation vs. N.L. Kakkar, 110 (2004) DLT 493). In view of this, the first reason given by the learned labour Court is not sustainable.
12. As regards the second reason, I have today decided WP (C) No.1420 of 2002 (DTC vs. Shyam Singh) in which both the impugned orders passed in OP No.47/96 have been set aside and it has been held that the two passengers were unreliable witnesses. Approval for terminating the services of the Respondent/workman has been granted in that case. The second reason is, therefore, no longer tenable.
13. The third reason may, independently, have some merit in it, but it will need to be considered in the overall context of the other conclusions arrived at with respect to the first and second reasons given by the learned Labour Court.
14. Under the circumstances, I think the appropriate course would be to remand the matter to the learned Labour Court for a fresh decision on merits after taking into consideration today's developments.
15. The impugned Award dated 8th November, 2001 is, therefore, set aside and the case remanded to the learned Labour Court for a fresh decision on merits, including on the quantum of back wages, if any, to be awarded. The parties will appear before the learned Labour Court on 15th October, 2004 for further proceedings.
September 29, 2004 ( Madan B. Lokur )
ncg Judge
