SUNANDA BHANDARE,J. - (1.) The petitioner Delhi Transport Corporation in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 24th July, 1972 of the Additional Industrial Tribund, Delhi in O.P. NO. 34 of 1971 on the ground that the Tribunal has gone beyond the scope and ambit of its jurisdiction in disciplinary matters.
(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.Respondent 1, Dal Chand was in the employment of the petitioner as a Conductor. On 10th May, 1971 respondent 1 was conducting Bus No. DLP-3679 running on Route No. 23-A. It is the case of the petitioner that the said bus was checked by the checking officials of the Corporation and that on checking the checking officials of the Corporation found that even though respondent 1 received rupee one from a passenger Shri Som Nath, he did not issue any ticket to him and returned 75 paise to the said passenger. According to the checking officials, the said passenger had boarded the bus at Nangloi for travel up to Model Basti where the passenger alighted without ticket. The legal fare from Nagloi to Model Basti being 35 paise. Respondent 1 was accordingly charge-sheeted on 26th June, 1970 for the act of irregularity. Respondent 1 replied to the charge-sheet and denied all the charges. An oral inquiry was ordered to be instituted in the matter of the charges levelled against respondent 1. The Inquiry Officer submitted his finding to the General Manager and the General Manager after issuing show cause notice removed respondent 1 from the service of the Corporation. Since a dispute was pending before the Industrial Tribunal the petitioner Corporation moved an application before the Additional Industrial Tribunal, respondent 2 herein, seeking approval of its action of removal of respondent from service.
(3.) The Tribunal examined the passenger witness Shri Som Nath as a Court witness, considered the report of the Inquiry Officer and came to a finding that the report of the Inquiry Officer was perverse and, therefore refused to grant approval under S. 33(2)(b) of j the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.;