Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sh.Sahab Singh (Ex-Conductor)
2009 Latest Caselaw 2046 Del

*             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+          Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.22768/2005 & 22860/2005

                                     Date of Decision : 14.5.2009

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION        ...... Petitioner
                        Through : Mr.Ataul Haque,
                        Advocate


                                Versus

SH.SAHAB SINGH (EX-CONDUCTOR)         ......              Respondent
                          Through : Nemo.


CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?                 YES
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?      NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?                              NO

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. By this common order, the writ petition bearing WP(C)

No.22768/2005 in case titled DTC Vs. Sh.Sabah Singh and

WP(C) No.22860/2005 titled DTC Vs. Sh.Sabah Singh shall

stand disposed of.

2. In the writ petition bearing no.22860/2005, the petitioner

has challenged the order dated 14.10.1996 passed by the learned

Industrial Tribunal-II in OP No.103/1995 titled DTC Vs.

Sh.Sabah Singh, by virtue of the which the learned Tribunal had

dismissed the said petition for grant of approval by the petitioner

under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as Act) as the petitioner had failed to pay

the cost which was imposed on the petitioner earlier.

3. In the other writ petition bearing WP(C) No.22768/2005,

the petitioner has challenged the award dated 05.4.2005 passed

by the learned Labour Court -VII in ID No.39/1996 titled DTC

Vs. Sh.Sahab Singh by virtue of which a reference made to the

learned Labour Court was answered in affirmative by observing

that since the approval application of the Management under

Section 33(2) (b) of the Act was dismissed accordingly, the

respondent/workman was directed to be reinstated with payment

of full back wages and all other consequential benefits from the

date of his illegal removal from service by the petitioner

/Management.

4. Briefly stated the facts of the present writ petition are that

the petitioner was employed as a Conductor on 15.5.1979 by the

petitioner. He was issued a charge sheet on 15.12.1993 for non

issuance of tickets to the passengers after collecting the fare from

them. This resulted in giving the charge sheet to him and

holding of a domestic enquiry. The domestic enquiry has held the

respondent guilty of the misconduct and accordingly, he was

visited with the punishment of dismissal before this decision

could become operative, an application for grant of approval

under Section 33(2) (b) of the Act was made to the learned

Labour Court which was dismissed on 14.10.1996 on the ground

that the petitioner/Management had failed to pay/deposit the

costs which was imposed earlier on him. This clearly shows that

the approval was not granted.

5. In ID No.39/96, a reference was made on account of

removal of the respondent/workman in the following terms of

reference, which reads as under:

"Whether the removal of Shri Sabah Singh from the service by the management is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

6. Reference was decided on 5th April, 2005 by the Labour

Court on the basis of the non grant of approval by the Labour

Court. Since the permission for removal was not granted to the

petitioner, the Labour Court referred to Jaipur Zila Sahakari

Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Verma & Ors. AIR

2002 (SC) 643 and held that his termination of service of the

respondent /workman was illegal and therefore, he was entitled

to be reinstatement with payment of full back wages and

continuity of services.

7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that even if the costs was not paid on 14.10.96, the

Labour Court ought to have given one more opportunity to pay

the sum or in any case decided the approval application on

merits and got the cost recovered by adopting correspondence.

8. It was also contended by counsel for the petitioner that the

learned Single Judge in case titled DTC Vs. Kusum Pahaljani &

Anr. 2000 (56) DRJ Supp 133. This Court in a similar fact

situation where the evidence of the petitioner /Management DTC

was closed on account of non-payment of cost and the

application for grant of approval was rejected, the High Court set

aside the order of the Labour Court subject to payment of cost of

Rs.10,000/- and permitted the petitioner /Management to

adduce evidence with regard to the validity of their application

seeking approval of the Labour Court under Section 33(2)(b) of

the Act.

9. The Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.480/2000

decided on 07.2.2002 in another case titled DTC Vs. Sh. Hari

Narain Giri & Anr. had also set aside the order of the learned

Single Judge in WP(C) No.4702/97 by placing reliance on the

order dated 14.8.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in

WP(C) No.5016/2001 and permitted the parties to adduce

evidence.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent/workman who had

argued the matter earlier had not been able to contravene any of

the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner or cite any

judgment to the contrary to the one which has been cited by

counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the judgment relied upon

by counsel for the petitioner and the impugned order dated

14.10.96 shows that the learned Labour Court has acted in

undue haste in not giving an opportunity to adduce evidence and

pay the cost. I, accordingly feel that the order of the learned

Labour Court dated 14.10.96 was hasty. Inasmuch as the order

does not show that a reasonable, just and fair opportunity was

given to the petitioner to either make the payment or to get the

adjudication of his application for approval done on merits.

11. I, accordingly set aside the order dated 14.10.96 passed in

OP No.103/1995 subject to their payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-

to the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Committee within four weeks

from today and remand the matter back to the learned Labour

Court to decide the same afresh after permitting the petitioner to

adduce evidence.

12. Needless to say that the Labour Court shall not give more

than two opportunities spread over a reasonable period of time

after the receipt of the order.

13. So far as the order dated 05.4.2005 in ID No.39/96 is

concerned, since the reference has been answered in favour of

the respondent/workman on the ground that the approval

application of the petitioner was rejected. This order will also

have to be set aside. This is on account of the fact that the order

regarding grant of approval application dated 14.10.96 itself has

been aside, therefore, as a consequence, this order is also

deserves to be set aside and the petitioner shall decide the entire

question of grant of approval or the legality of the order of

termination in terms of the reference in one order as

expeditiously as possible. It is hoped that the Labour Court-II

shall make an endeavour to decide the matter as early as

possible preferably not beyond a period of four weeks from the

date of the order.

14. With these directions, the order dated 14.10.96 passed in

OP No.103/95 and the award dated 5.4.2005 passed in ID

No.39/96 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the

learned Labour Court.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to appear

before the learned Labour Court on 2 nd July, 2009.

Copy of this order be sent to the respondent /workman for

the purpose of intimation.

No order as to costs.

V.K. SHALI, J.

MAY 14, 2009 RN