Delhi Transport Corporation vs The Workman Shri Subhash Chand & ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 9462 Del

R-105
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of Decision: December 18, 2015

+     W.P.(C) 7644/1999 & C.M. 18177/2012
      DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION            ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar & Ms. Arati
                            Mahajan Shedha, Advocates

                          versus

      THE WORKMAN SHRI SUBHASH CHAND & ANR.
                                           ..... Respondents
                  Through: Ms. Komal Aggarwal, Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Impugned order of 22nd October, 1998 rejects petitioner's application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disptues Act. Vide order of 23rd February, 1998, it was held that the inquiry initiated against respondent-workman stands vitiated. This order was not specifically challenged by petitioner. Since petitioner had sought permission to lead evidence on the misconduct aspect, therefore, petitioner was permitted to get examined Ram Prasad, one of the Checking Official.

Impugned order notes that respondent-workman was on duty as Conductor on petitioner's bus on 7th July, 1993 and upon surprise check, it was found that six lady passengers, who were alighting from the bus, were without tickets and they had told the Checking Officials that they

had paid `30/- to respondent-Conductor as fare from Loni to Bagpat but the Conductor did not issue the tickets to them and so, respondent- Conductor was challaned.

Trial court vide impugned order had declined approval to the removal of respondent-workman while holding that the solitary evidence of Ram Prasad- one of the Checking Official, does not establish the aforesaid misconduct of respondent-Conductor. It is also noted in the impugned order that none of the six lady passengers have been got examined and petitioner's evidence is silent about the short cash.

At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had submitted that examination of the passengers was not essential and evidence of the Checking Official by itself is sufficient and that the Inquiry Report rightly holds that the misconduct of respondent-Conductor is proved. Thus, it was submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and petitioner's application under Section 33 (2) (b) of The Industrial Disputes Act ought to be allowed.

Learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that there is no infirmity in it.

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, Inquiry Report and the material on record, I find that solitary evidence of Checking Official- Ram Prasad is not on record nor it has been shown to this Court. This Court is constrained to observe that in such like cases, at the preliminary hearing, no prayer is made for calling of the records. Since no such prayer was made in the instant case also and so, the record stands weeded out. It is so evident from the Report of 29th September, 2015 received from trial court.

In the absence of evidence of solitary witness- Ram Prasad, petitioner is handicapped to show that the impugned order suffers from any palpable error. In such a situation, there is no option but to dismiss this petition.

This petition is accordingly dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

In view of orders passed in the writ petition, no effective orders are called for in the pending application and this application is accordingly disposed of as infructuous.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE DECEMBER 18, 2015 r