Delhi High Court
Dtc vs Kartar Singh & Ors. on 1 December, 2011
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% W.P.(C) 755/1998
+ Date of Decision: 1st December, 2011
# DTC ....Petitioner
! Through: Ms. Bhakti Pasrija S., Advocate
Versus
$ KARTAR SINGH & ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL)
The petitioner-management by filing this writ petition seeks to
challenge the award dated 14.10.1996 passed by the Industrial Tribunal
whereby the punishment of reduction of respondent-workman to the initial
stage in the time scale for the post of a driver was found to be unjustified
and consequently had been set aside.
2. The undisputed facts are that the respondent-workman was employed
with Delhi Transport Corporation as a driver. He was charge-sheeted on
6.5.92 on the allegation that on 2.4.92 while driving DTC bus an accident
was caused by him with a truck due to rash and negligent driving and in that
accident DTC suffered a loss of ` 20,000/- because of the damage caused
to the bus. The respondent-workman had refuted the aforesaid allegations.
The petitioner-management conducted an enquiry in which also respondent-
workman had not accepted the charge that the accident was caused due to
his rash and negligent driving and it was his defence that there was no fault
on his part.
3. After enquiry was concluded the enquiry officer vide his report dated
31st July, 1992 came to the conclusion that there was merit in the defence of
the driver, the respondent herein, but it was also observed that while
overtaking the truck with which the accident took place it was his duty to
keep himself ready for such like situation so that he could have controlled
the bus. The final conclusion was that accident took place because of the
negligence of the bus driver as well as the truck driver. Accepting that
finding of the enquiry officer the management awarded the penalty to the
respondent-workman as noticed already.
4. The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute which was
referred to the Industrial Tribunal and which was registered there as I.D.
No. 222/1994. The Industrial Tribunal on receipt of reference gave notice to
the management as well as the workman. The petitioner-management did
not participate in the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal while the
respondent-workman filed his statement of claim. Ex-parte award dated
14.10.1996 was then passed holding that since it had been held in the
enquiry by the Enquiry Officer that the respondent-workman was not
negligent the punishment awarded to him was not justified and accordingly
the same was set aside.
5. Feeling aggrieved the present writ petition was filed. It was
contended by the counsel for the petitioner-management that since the
Enquiry Officer had held that it had some evidence before him that
respondent-workman was also negligent the Industrial Tribunal should not
have interfered with the findings of the Enquiry Officer as if it was deciding
the case as an appellate authority.
6. In my view, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The learned
Industrial Tribunal was fully justified in setting aside the impugned order of
punishment awarded to the respondent-workman. A perusal of the enquiry
proceedings, copies of which have been made a part of this writ petition,
shows that the respondent-workman had claimed that he was not negligent
and responsible for the accident still no legal evidence to rebut that
statement was adduced by the petitioner-management during the enquiry.
The only witness examined in the enquiry on behalf of the petitioner-
management was one Ticket Tallying Inspector Shri Surat Singh who
simply claimed that on the basis of his observation of the scene of accident
it was his view that the accident could have been avoided by the
respondent-workman. He was not a witness to the accident and so his view
could not be considered to be any evidence at all which could be used
against the respondent-workman. Thus, there being no evidence
whatsoever adduced by the petitioner-management during enquiry
proceedings on the basis of which the conclusion that the respondent-
workman was also negligent so could be arrived at the finding of the
enquiry officer holding it to be a perverse finding and so the Industrial
Tribunal rightly did not accept the same.
7. The petitioner-management could have sought an opportunity from
the Industrial Tribunal to establish the alleged misconduct before the Court
by adducing necessary evidence, in the event of enquiry proceedings being
found to be illegal for any reason but in the present case the petitioner-
management did not claim any such opportunity. In fact, even written
statement was not filed. Consequently the learned Industrial Tribunal was
fully justified in proceeding further to set aside the impugned order of
punishment after holding that guilt of the respondent-workman had not been
established. It is significant to note that even in the present writ petition no
such grievance had been raised on behalf of the petitioner-management that
it should have been given an opportunity to establish the misconduct of the
respondent-workman by adducing necessary evidence before the Industrial
Tribunal.
8. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs of ` 10,000/-. As
a result of dismissal of the writ petition, the amount of wages which the
petitioner-management had deposited in this Court in compliance of the
order dated 23rd February, 1998 while granting stay of the operation of the
impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal shall now be released in favour
of the respondent-workman along with interest, if any accrued on that
deposit, within four weeks.
P.K. BHASIN, J
DECEMBER 01, 2011
nk
