DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SURINDER PAL
LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-247
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on July 17,2007

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Appellant
VERSUS
SURINDER PAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the legality of the award dated 3rd August, 2004 whereby the Industrial Tribunal 11, Karkardooma Court, Delhi held that the order dated 29th April, 1992 of termination of the respondent workman was illegal and unjustified and the workman was entitled for reinstatement of service with full back wages.
(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are that respondent was working as a conductor with the petitioner. He was chargesheeted on 10th January, 1992 because of his continuous unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 18th July, 1991. An inquiry was conducted as per rules and regulations and in the inquiry, the respondent was found guilty of the charge. The Depot Manager issued a show cause notice to the respondent dated 9th April, 1992 as to why he should not be removed from service and thereafter an order of termination of service of the respondent was passed. The petitioner made an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') to the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the decision of removal of respondent from service and a notice of the application was sent to the respondent. The application was contested by the respondent before the Industrial Tribunal in O.P. No. 175 of 1992. The Industrial Tribunal framed an issue regarding validity of the inquiry in following terms: 'Whether the applicant held a legal and valid inquiry against the respondent according to the principles of natural justice.'
(3.) Both parties led evidence before the Tribunal. After the evidence in respect of entire matter was led before the Industrial Tribunal, the Industrial Tribunal considered the evidence and heard the arguments and passed an order dated 10th February, 2000 holding that the termination of respondent by the petitioner was valid and that the petitioner had been able to establish all the ingredients of the provisions of Sections 32(2) (b) of the Act. The Tribunal allowed the application under Section 32(2) (b) of the Act. This order of the Industrial Tribunal was not challenged by the respondent and attained finality.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.