Jaipal Singh vs D.T.C.
2007 Latest Caselaw 1728 Del

ORDER

CM No.12379/2007 (exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM No.12380/2007 (for delay)

1. This is an application filed by the appellant praying for condensation of delay of about 173 days in filing the present appeal.

Reasons given for the delay in re-filing the present appeal is mis-placement of the file from the Chamber of the learned Counsel for the appellant. Although the explanation given is vague, we accept the application particularly in view of the fact that the said delay was caused in re-filing the appeal.

The appeal is taken on record. The said application stands disposed of.

LPA No. 1207/2007

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6th November, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the merit of the appeal.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that the evidence of the passengers, who had recorded their statements in the complaint book in favor of the appellant have been ignored and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. It is also submitted by him that the learned Single Judge committed an error of law by re-appreciating the evidence and in giving contrary findings to what was held by the Labour Court.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respondent who had brought before us the original record of the respondent.

5. The appellant herein was placed under suspension and was issued a charge sheet for the mis-conduct committed by him, which was stated to be as follows:

On 22.3.90, when you were on duty at Bus No. DLP-9011 from Talwara - Delhi, then at about 7.20, your Bus was checked by the Checking Staff at Mukeria and 3 passengers were found alighting from the Bus without tickets. They had paid total fare of eight passengers at the rate of Rs. 2/- per passenger i.e. Rs. 6/- but you had not issued any ticket to them. These passengers had boarded your Bus from Hazipur for Mukeria.

On further checking, 16 passengers, which were of different groups, were found traveling without ticket. Out of which, 9 passengers had boarded the Bus from Talwara for Delhi and they had paid you the total fare of Rs. 61/-. Two passengers boarded the Bus from Talwara for Dasua and they had paid the total fare to you at the rate of Rs. 4.70/- per ticket. One passenger had boarded your Bus from Hazipur for Haryana. He had paid Rs. 7/- to you. Once passenger had boarded the Bus from Talwara for Hoshiarpur. He had paid total fare i.e. Rs. 11/- to you. Two passengers had boarded you Bus from Hazipur to Hoshiarpur and they had paid total at the rate of Rs. 9/- per ticket. Once passenger had boarded the Bus from Hazipur for Dasua and he had paid Rs. 4/- to you. But no tickets were issued.

2. Taking out the Bus from the Terminal without giving all the tickets.

3. You provoked the passengers against the Checking Staff.

4. Refusing from giving the Complaint Book on the demand by checking Staff.

5. Checking Staff found you Way-Bill blank.

6. Stopping the passengers from giving Written Statement.

6. The specific case of the respondent was based upon the report of the checking staff relating to the incident dated 22nd March, 1990. On the aforesaid date, it was found that 16 passengers, who were of different groups, were traveling without ticket. Departmental inquiry was conducted by appointing Inquiry Officer, who in his report found that the appellant was guilty. Inquiry Officer has appreciated evidence adduced by the parties. On careful consideration thereof, he held that when the bus in question was checked by the checking staff at Mukeria, three passengers were found alighted from the bus without ticket. Although they had paid Rs. 6/- to the conductor as fare @Rs.2/- per passenger for the journey from Hazipur to Mukeria, no tickets were issued to them. It was held that the unpunched blank tickets for Hazipur to Mukeria make the charge clear. He also upheld the charge that nine passengers had paid Rs. 61/- to the conductor, but were not issued tickets. Nine unpunched tickets from Talwara to Delhi were available in the case file. Similarly, other charges that the appellant had collected fare/money but had failed to issue tickets were proved. He also held that the appellant was requested to give complaint book but the same was not furnished. The checking staff was cross-examined but they stuck to their statements. Having considered the entire evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order terminating the services of the appellant.

7. Being aggrieved, a dispute was raised by the appellant. Labour Court received evidence and thereafter held that the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman had violated principles of natural justice. It was also held that the Inquiry Officer had acted in a mala fide and in a biased manner. By the award dated 19th January, 2004, the reference was answered in favor of the workman and the Management was directed to reinstate the workman in service with full back wages till the age of superannuation.

8. The Delhi Transport Corporation being aggrieved by the aforesaid award filed a writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

9. The aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this Court, in which the aforesaid contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

10. The Inquiry Officer has clearly stated that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved and established. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Inquiry Officer has referred to the statements of the checking staff and the records prepared at the time of the incident. The Inquiry Officer has scrutinized the statements of the alleged passenger witnesses adduced by the appellant. After appreciation of the said evidence including the alleged passenger witnesses, it was held that the said evidence and material establish guilty and misconduct of the appellant-conductor. The checking staff report clearly implicates the appellant. The said report is exhaustive and detailed. The aforesaid findings, which was recorded by the Inquiry Officer were re-appreciated by the Labour Court, particularly the evidence of Mr. G.C. Puri and Mr. Sham Lal stated to be passengers-witnesses. Although Mr. G.C. Puri is being claimed as a passenger witness, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that he is not actually a passenger witness. So far as evidence of the other passengers are concerned, their names do not find mention in the complaint book. It is also stated that statements in the complaint book came to be recorded subsequent to the checking by the checking staff of the Delhi Transport Corporation. The enquiry officer has given a specific finding that the complaint book was not shown to the checking staff and the said charge stood proved. Similarly, the enquiry officer has held that the way-bill for recording of fare receipts, was found to be blank and the same had not been filled up. The said charge was also proved. The allegation that the appellant was not furnished "some" documents was examined by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer noticed that no such request or demand was made during the enquiry. The said allegation was made after closing of the enquiry proceedings. Before us the appellant has not pointed out any specific document, which was not supplied as how and why he has been prejudiced. He has also not stated why no such request was made in the reply to the charge sheet and during the enquiry. Principles of natural justice get violated when material documents are not supplied, but even in such cases prejudice caused has to be stated and established. (Refer Syndicate Bank v. Venkatesh Gururao and Divisional Manager, Plantation Division v. Munnu Barrick and Ors. ).

11. We have also perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has considered the award and records and held that the Tribunal did not give opportunity to the Management to prove mis-conduct by adducing evidence and that it was found to be illegal. He has observed that admittedly some of the passengers did not have tickets but the plea taken by the conductor was that he would first issue tickets to the short distance passengers and then he would issue tickets to long distance passengers. The passengers who were produced by the appellant also stated that the conductor did not issue ticket because of over crowding in the bus. Therefore, the charge that the appellant did not issue tickets was proved. The contention that the learned Single Judge could not have re-appreciate the evidence and come to different findings, is also mis-placed in view of the fact that the Tribunal mis-read and mis-construed the evidence on record and referred to certain extraneous matters. Necessarily the said errors were required to be corrected by the learned Single Judge, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the Labour Court has upset and set aside the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry. Labour Courts/tribunals act within law. Once a domestic tribunal based on evidence gives a particular finding, the said finding is normally not open to challenge by Courts/Tribunals as an appellate forum. Courts/Tribunals do not have right to substitute their subjective opinion in place of the findings given by the domestic tribunal. (See Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh and Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. (NLOKRTC) v. A.T. Mane ).

12. We find no error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.