Delhi Transport Corporation v. Om Prakash

1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the entire record which was before the writ court, has been filed with the appeal. We have consequently heard learned counsel for the appellant who has taken us through the relevant record. The appellant assails the judgment dated 20th August, 2014 passed in WP (C) No.596/2013 filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `DTC’) which has been dismissed. The learned Single Judge has thereby upheld the order dated 18th December, 2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court holding that the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the DTC 2014:DHC:7398-DB against the respondent-workman was vitiated and illegal as well as the industrial Award dated 27th August, 2012 finding the termination of the services of the respondent contrary to law and consequently directing re-instatement of the respondent with 50% back wages.

2. It is an admitted position that the respondent was working since 1982 with the DTC as a conductor. With regard to an alleged incident on 5th June, 1992, a charge-sheet dated 16th June, 1992 was issued to the respondent alleging that while performing duty on 5th June, 1992 on DTC Bus No.9206 plying on route no.838, the checking team of the DTC in Uttam Nagar at 10.15 a.m. was informed by the ticket less passengers that the respondent had accepted fare of Rs.2/- each from two passengers who had boarded the bus from Hari Nagar Ghanta Ghar for Uttam Nagar without issuing tickets to the passengers thereby causing financial loss to the DTC. The DTC alleged that the respondent had accepted his fault and surrendered two unpunched tickets of Rs.2/- each to the checking team. The checking team recorded statement of the passengers to the above effect.

3. On receipt of a report dated 5th June, 1992 from the ticket inspectors, the respondent was placed under suspension vide memo dated 10th June, 1992. After considering the reply by the respondent, the matter stood referred to the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer submitted a report to the disciplinary authority finding the respondent guilty of the misconduct. After service of the copy of the inquiry report and giving opportunity to file a defence, by an order dated 10th March, 1995, the disciplinary authority accepted the recommendations of the inquiry officer and imposed penalty of removal from service against the respondent.

4. The workman assailed his dismissal and raised an industrial dispute. An order dated 18th December, 2009 was passed by the industrial adjudicator holding that the inquiry was vitiated for the reason that the respondent was not given opportunity to avail the services of a defence assistant and that the inquiry proceedings were in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further found that the DTC examined only the inquiry officer; disciplinary authority and one of the ticket inspectors, as witnesses. The Labour Court had concluded that the disciplinary authority was not a witness to the case and consequently, so far as the alleged misconduct was concerned, his evidence was inconsequential. With regard to the testimony of the ticket inspectors, it was found that the same was hearsay which could not have been relied upon by the inquiry officer.

5. It has also been observed that when the cash in hand of the workman was inspected, the checking officers had found that, if the allegations were correct, instead of being in excess by Rs.4/-, the cash with the respondent was actually short by Rs.2.50/-. The Labour Court has consequently found substance in the contention of the workman that the passengers had in fact not paid the amount to the conductor and, to avoid their culpability for travelling without ticket, had made a false statement when their demeanour came to light upon checking by the ticket inspectors, had made a false statement. Even if the statement by the ticket inspector is taken to be true, the same is not supported by the factual result of the inspection of the cash in hand by the inspector.

6. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondent-workman before the learned Single Judge that bus route no.838 from Jama Masjid to Uttam Nagar is an extremely busy route and the bus was over crowded at all points of time. The submission was that the two passengers took benefit of the same.

7. The findings on fact recorded by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted on any legally tenable grounds. For all these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. CM Nos.21090/2014 & 21089/2014

8. Inasmuch as we have heard the appeal on merit and found no substance in it, no orders are warranted on this application. The same is disposed of. CM No.21088/2014

9. In view of the orders passed on the appeal, this application is rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.

(GITA MITTAL) JUDGE (SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL)

JUDGE DECEMBER 23, 2014 aa