Delhi District Court
The vs The on 6 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHAVIR SINGHAL: POIT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
I.D. No. 425/10/07
The Workman
Sh. Mehtab Singh, s/o Sh. Darbare Lal, Driver, Badge No.18580, c/o
Delhi Parivahan Mazdoor Sangh (Regd.), 5239, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi
110006.
Vs.
The Management
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Indraprastha Estate,
New Delhi.
Date of institution 26.11.2007
Date of reserving judgment 29.08.2012
Date of award 06.09.2012
Ref : F.24 (958)/06/Lab.3840-44 dated 19.11.07
AWARD
1.Workman has raised the present industrial dispute through Union and on failure of conciliation proceedings, GNCT of Delhi referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication in following terms of reference:-
I.D. No.330/10 Page 1 of 21
1. Whether following punishments imposed by the management on Sh. Mehtab Singh, S/o Sh.
Darbare Lal are illegal and/or unjustified and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?
(i) punishment of censure.
(ii) Stoppage of two increments in year 1998.
(iii) Penalty of low grade for one year in year 2001.
(iv) Stoppage of next due two increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 12.01.2000.
(v) Stoppage of next due one increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 07.05.2003.
(vi) Penalty of deduction of Rs.200/- and Rs.
1666/- from the salary as damages in year 2002 and 2003 respectively.
2. Whether demand of time scale for Sh. Mehtab Singh, S/o Sh. Darbare Lal, Driver is justified and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?
2. Statement of claim has been filed by the workman, wherein it is stated that workman has been working with the management since 1988 and presently he is posted at Keshavpur Depot as Driver. It is stated that he has been working honestly and diligently at the salary of Rs.9000/- pm. It is further stated that the workman is active member of Delhi Parivahan Majdoor Sangh. It is stated that Depot Manager in the year 1996 suspended the workman on 6.6.96 on the allegation of absence during the year 1996. It is stated that after conducting enquiry, punishment of Censure was imposed on the workman. It is stated that in the enquiry, I.D. No.330/10 Page 2 of 21 contentions of workman were ignored, which was against the principles of natural justice.
3. It is further stated that in the year 1998, workman was posted at Katra-Delhi route and at 4.15 am of 18.8.1998, checking staff caught six passengers without ticket and on the basis of report of Sh. Sukhbir Singh, ATI, Driver was held guilty by the management. The workmen in his explanation stated that he was driving the bus and checking of tickets with the passengers is the duty of Conductor, but the enquiry was conducted against him and punishment of stoppage of increment was imposed upon him.
4. It is further stated that on 15.5.2002 due to defect in gearbox of the bus, the vehicle broke down and there was no fault on the part of workman in the matter, but the management without conducting any enquiry, deducted Rs.200/- from his salary, which is against the principles of natural justice.
5. It is further stated that on 11.8.03 some goods were being loaded from Store in bus and said bus was parked applying the hand-break. Suddenly, because of leakage in the hand-break, the bus started moving back and for this reason the glasses lying inside the bus were broken. It is stated that in the matter, there was no fault on the part of workmen, but I.D. No.330/10 Page 3 of 21 again, without holding any enquiry, Rs.1666/- were recovered from his salary, against the principles of natural justice.
6. It is further stated that a charge sheet dated 30.03.1999 was given to the workman with the allegation that during the duty in Bus No.3661 on Delhi Pathankot Road, workman manipulated in the purchase of 35 litres of diesel. The workman gave reply to the said charge sheet, in which he stated that due to leakage of diesel, it was consumed in more quantity and there was no fault of the workman in the matter, whereas, Conductor alongwith him got refilled the diesel. However, the management was not satisfied with his explanation.
7. It is stated that management on 11.4.2000 wrote a letter to workman stating that stoppage of next due two increments without cumulative effect has been awarded to him. It is stated that contentions of workman were ignored during enquiry proceedings.
8. It is further stated that management served a charge sheet dated 11.9.2001 stating that on 31.7.2001, due to the negligence and rash driving by the workman, Bus No.1201 at Route No. 247/6, while coming from Bus Stand to Krishan Vihar, after crossing Lawrence Road Fly-over, near Prem Baadi Light, at about 10.15 am, met with an accident, in which a loss of Rs.20,000/- occurred and police also challaned u/s 279/337 IPC. I.D. No.330/10 Page 4 of 21
9. It is stated that the workmen gave his explanation in time to the effect that the accident occurred due to break-fail. It is stated that after giving information to the passengers and conductor, he tried to stop the bus aside the road, due to which no injury was caused to any of the passengers nor any damage was caused. The accident took place because of break-fail, which is a technical fault and the workman was not guilty in the same.
10. It is stated that the contentions of workman were ignored during enquiry proceedings and without holding proper investigation at the site, punishment of stoppage of next due one increment without cumulative effect was awarded to the workman on 7.5.2003, which is against the principles of natural justice.
11. It is further stated that on 12.12.2001, a false allegation was leveled against the workman that from I.S.B.T he drove the bus vacant. In reply, the workman stated that for this 57 Seater bus, 58 ½ passengers had already taken advance tickets. It is stated that without holding enquiry, workman was awarded punishment of Low Grade from one year, which is against the principles of natural justice.
12. It is stated that the management under a conspiracy, because of the personal enmity between the workman and Depot Manager, false I.D. No.330/10 Page 5 of 21 allegations have been leveled against the workman again and again. It is stated that workman filed an appeal before Chairman, DTC, but no heed was paid.
13. It is prayed that the punishments awarded to the workman, as stated above be expunged and the time scale which has been stopped by the management be revived with arrears.
14. In the WS filed by the management, it is stated that the present industrial dispute is not espoused by any recognised union as per law and, therefore, present industrial dispute is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that management may be given opportunity to prove the charges leveled against the workman, in case the enquiry is held to be vitiated. It is denied that throughout the course of his employment, the workman always worked honestly and has clean record of service.
15. It is stated that checking team found that workman was taking six passengers, who were also found sitting on the bonnet of the bus alongwith the driver and were also without tickets on 27.3.98, while the bus was checked by the checking team at Ambala Cantt, while the same was coming from Katra and going to Delhi.
16. As regards punishments of deducting Rs.200/- and Rs.1666/- from the salary of workman, it is stated that the said punishments were I.D. No.330/10 Page 6 of 21 justified as the workman was found driving rashly and negligently, due to which gear box of the bus was damaged.
17. As regards purchase of 35 litres of diesel, it is stated that workman did not submit any supporting documents/ receipts for the purchase of 35 litres of diesel. It is submitted that the said offence was committed in the year 1999 and the present dispute has been raised after a long period of more than 9 years and no reason and explanation for such a a long period is given in the statement of claim.
18. It is submitted that punishment of stoppage of next due two increments without cumulative effect vide letter dated 11.4.2000 was given in the year 2000 and the workman raised the present industrial dispute after a long period of more than 8 years and no reasons and explanation for such a long period have been given or mentioned in the statement of claim, therefore, the present industrial dispute is liable to be dismissed.
19. As regards accident occurred on 31.7.2001, it is denied that the accident was caused due to failure of break of the bus, while the workman was driving. It is submitted that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the workman, for which police also challaned u/s 279/337 IPC. It is submitted that in the said accident, a scooterist was I.D. No.330/10 Page 7 of 21 injured and damage to the bus was to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. It is further submitted that the above punishment was imposed in the year 2003 and the present dispute has been raised after a long period of more than 5 years, for which no reason and explanation has been given by the workman.
20. It is submitted that the enquiries against the workman were conducted as per rules and regulations and as per the principles of natural justice and as such the punishments awarded to him are justified.
21. Workman has filed rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated the stand taken in his statement of claim and denied the averments made in the written statement.
22. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor on 25.01.2008:-
1. As per terms of reference.
2. Relief.
23. On 23.12.2009, following issue on the point of enquiry was framed by Ld. Predecessor:-
Whether the management has conducted fair and proper inquiry against the workman for the misconduct mentioned in the Reference? OPM
24. On the issue of enquiry, workman examined himself as WW 1. In I.D. No.330/10 Page 8 of 21 his affidavit, he has reiterated the contents of his statement of claim. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he had asked for certain documents, which were duly supplied by the management. It is further admitted that he has been given full opportunity by the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry proceedings to represent his case i.e. to make the cross- examination to the witness of management. He has admitted that recovery of Rs.200/- was made on account of break down in gear box of the bus and that he was driving the bus, while the gear box of bus went out of order. It is further admitted that he has filed the present case after seven years gap. He has voluntarily stated that it is so because he made representation to the department and thereafter only, he has filed the present claim. He did not remember on which date, month and year, he made representation to the management against the recovery of Rs.200/-. He has further deposed that he has made representation on 5.11.2004 of misconduct alleged to be committed in the year 2001.
25. Management has examined Ms. Archana Punn as MW 1. In her affidavit, she has deposed that the enquiry into the case was entrusted to her. She has deposed that the enquiry in this case was conducted as per the principles of natural justice and full opportunity was given to the workman to cross-examine the report and witnesses of management. It is I.D. No.330/10 Page 9 of 21 further deposed that the workman was given opportunity to take assistance of the co-worker and also read over all the charges in Hindi.
26. In her cross-examination she has admitted that complaint book was not exhibited as the passengers did not join the enquiry. She has denied that passengers have not been summoned for their statements during the enquiry. She has voluntarily stated that as the addresses of passengers were incomplete, they did not appear in enquiry proceedings.
27. Sh. G.K. Sabarwal, Regional Manager (Rural) has been examined by the management as MW 2. In his affidavit, he has deposed that he was working as Depot Manager at the time, when the matter of the workman was taken and he, being the disciplinary authority is fully conversant with the facts and contents of the matter of workman. He has deposed that workman was issued charge sheet dated 13.6.96 and reply to charge sheet dated 1.8.96 was filed by the workman, which was considered and not found satisfactory and the matter was entrusted to the enquiry officer vide order dated 16.9.96. It is deposed that enquiry was conducted as per principles of natural justice.
28. In his cross-examination, MW 2 has denied that no fair and legal enquiry was conducted into the matter. He has deposed that he has given the punishment on the basis of findings of enquiry officer. I.D. No.330/10 Page 10 of 21
29. MW 3 Ms. Sunita Chauhan, Manager (Traffic) of DTC has deposed in her affidavit that she was enquiry officer in the matters of workman. She has deposed that the enquiry was conducted as per rules and regulations of corporation and as per principles of natural justice. It is deposed that full opportunity was given to workman to cross-examine the witnesses of management and to produce his defense witness. She has proved on record various charge sheets given to the workman, enquiry proceedings, defence statement of the workman etc as Ex. MW3/1 to 3/20.
30. In her cross-examination she has admitted that regarding charge sheet dated 7.4.1998, the written statement of passengers were not filed during the enquiry. She has also admitted that report of checking staff regarding the cash checking of conductor was not filed during the enquiry proceedings. She has denied that she has not considered the statement of Conductor Puran Chand.
31. After hearing arguments from both the parties, enquiry issue as framed on 23.12.2009 was decided in favour of workman and it was held that the enquiries conducted by the management against the workman for various misconducts as mentioned above, are not fair and proper. The enquiries and consequently, penalties were vitiated vide said order.
32. Thereafter, on remaining issues no.1 and 2, as framed on I.D. No.330/10 Page 11 of 21 25.1.2008, parties led further evidence as under:-
33. Management examined Sh. Dinesh Singh, its Manager (Mech.) as MW 4. In his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit, he has deposed that he has made mechanical inspection of the bus in question and has made damage performa dated 7.8.01 Ex. MW4/1. Driver memo of workman dated 31.7.01 has been proved as Ex. MW4/2. He has deposed that on seeing the bus, it can be said that the workman was driving the bus at very high speed in a rash and negligent manner.
34. In his cross-examination, MW 4 has deposed that he was not present at the spot where the breaks of the bus were failed. He has deposed that there was no break fail of the bus. He has deposed that he has not checked the bus. He has denied that he has made damage assessment report under pressure of Depot Manager.
35. MW 5 Sh. Vijender Singh, Driver has deposed in his affidavit that on 17.5.96 he performed duty on bus route no.952/8, where workman was also on duty as co-worker, but he was not on duty with him. He deposed that while on duty, in the way he received message that his son fell ill seriously and, therefore, he could not complete his duty and he was relieved from duty after submitting his leave application. He has deposed that management missed two trip due to missing from duty of the I.D. No.330/10 Page 12 of 21 workman.
36. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that workman was not aware about the duty fixed with him. He has admitted that driver memo Ex. MW5/2, vide which workman was deputed, mentions the code number of another driver and after mentioning the code number, the same was over written. He has admitted that code number of workman was mentioned later on.
37. MW 6 Sh. Sukhbir Singh, ATI and the reporter in the matter, in his affidavit, has witnessed the charges levelled against the workman. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he did not challan the without ticket passengers as there is no procedure. He has denied that he issued challan to Driver in collusion with Conductor. He has admitted that preparing and checking of ticket is duty of Conductor. It is admitted that if the passenger is found without ticket, the conductor is responsible. It is further admitted that it is not the duty of Driver to check the tickets with the passengers. It is denied that he has challened the driver wrongfully. He has denied that he has prepared his report under pressure of his senior officers. He does not remember whether he was on special checking duty or on routine checking as the case is very old.
38. MW 7 Sh. I.P. Singh, Dealing Assistant, (Legal) of management I.D. No.330/10 Page 13 of 21 in his affidavit, has reiterated, more or less, the contents of written statement. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he has no personal knowledge of cases mentioned in the present dispute. He has deposed that the documents relied upon by him in his evidence are neither executed nor signed in my presence.
39. Workman has examined himself further as WW 1. In his affidavit, he has more or less, reiterated the contents of statement of claim.
In his cross-examination, he has denied that he has allowed six passengers to travel in the bus without ticket as they are known to me. He has denied that he has been awarded the punishment legally. He has denied that he has not taken timely action against the punishment given to him.
40. I have heard arguments from Sh. B.S. Rawat, Ld. AR for the workman and Sh. D.P.Sharma, Ld. counsel/ AR for the management. Though term no.2 of the terms of reference is not related to enquiry, yet it may be mentioned that during arguments, Ld. AR for workman has not pressed any relief in this regard. I have perused the entire record. My findings on the enquiry issue are as under:-
41. Findings on Issue no.1 as framed on 25.01.2008:-
Issue no.1 is As per terms of reference. Terms of reference are as I.D. No.330/10 Page 14 of 21 under:-
1. Whether following punishments imposed by the management on Sh. Mehtab Singh, S/o Sh. Darbare Lal are illegal and/or unjustified and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?
(i) punishment of censure.
(ii) Stoppage of two increments in year 1998.
(iii) Penalty of low grade for one year in year 2001.
(iv) Stoppage of next due two increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 12.01.2000.
(v) Stoppage of next due one increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 07.05.2003.
(vi) Penalty of deduction of Rs.200/- and Rs. 1666/- from the salary as damages in year 2002 and 2003 respectively.
2. Whether demand of time scale for Sh. Mehtab Singh, S/o Sh. Darbare Lal, Driver is justified and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?
42. In the reference, first punishment is of censure. As regards censure, the charge against the workman mentioned in the charge sheet dated 5.6.96 is that he was found missing from his duty without permission of the competent authority and caused financial loss to the corporation.
43. MW 5 in his cross-examination has admitted that workman was not aware about the duty fixed with him. He has admitted that driver memo Ex. MW5/2, vide which workman was deputed, mentions the code number of another driver and after mentioning the code number, the same was over written. He has admitted that code number of workman was mentioned later on.
44. From the admissions of MW 5, is it clear that workman was not I.D. No.330/10 Page 15 of 21 aware about his said duty. It is also clear that in the driver memo Ex. MW5/2, vide which workman was allegedly deputed, name of workman was mentioned later by making overwriting/manipulation. Hence, genuineness of Ex. MW5/2 is doubtful. Accordingly, this punishment imposed against the workman is found to be perverse and is, therefore, quashed.
45. Second punishment in the reference is of stoppage of two increments in year 1998. The charge for this punishment was that six passengers were found without tickets in the bus of workman and that the workman/driver was in collusion with passengers and thus, allowed them to travel without tickets.
46. MW 6 has admitted in his cross-examination that preparing and checking of ticket is duty of Conductor. It is admitted that if the passenger is found without ticket, the conductor is responsible. It is further admitted that it is not the duty of Driver to check the tickets with the passengers.
47. From the admission of MW 6, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that workman being Driver is not guilty of the said charge and thus, the punishment imposed against this charge is quashed. I.D. No.330/10 Page 16 of 21
48. Third punishment in the reference order is penalty of low grade for one year in year 2001. The charge sheet dated 5.1.99 in this regard contains following charges:-
(i) Starting the bus before scheduled time and not allowing the bus to be filled completely.
(ii) Disobeying the orders of checking team and misbehaving with them.
(iii) Not taking interest in duties and carelessness.
(iv) Attempt to cause financial loss to the corporation.
49. It is mentioned in the enquiry report in this regard at page 367 of the file that statement of delinquent official in his final statement is to the effect that as per memo, he was ready to ply the bus and as per voucher there were 55 ½ passengers in his bus, seems to be correct as per memo of driver, way bill and way vouchers. It is further mentioned that it is not proper to state that delinquent official plied the bus before its scheduled time. Puran Chand Conductor, in enquiry proceedings dated 28.6.99, at pages 353 and 355 of the file, has stated in his statement that they departed the bus at scheduled time and the bus was full of passengers and no seat was vacant. He has further deposed that the workman did not misbehave with anybody, for which he was challaned.
50. Hence, main allegations no.(i) and (iii) as mentioned in para 48 above, stands decided in favour of workman. Accordingly, allegations No.(ii) and (iv) have no base to stand upon. Moreover, no cogent I.D. No.330/10 Page 17 of 21 evidence i.e. any public or eye witness in support of these charges has been examined by the management before this Tribunal to substantiate its case in this regard. Thus, these misconducts stand unestablished and, therefore, penalty of low grade for one year in year 2001 is accordingly quashed.
51. Fourth punishment in the reference order is stoppage of next due two increments without cumulative effect, vide order dated 12.1.2000. The charge for this punishment is manipulation in purchase of 35 litres of diesel, due to which bus broke down.
52. No cogent evidence to prove manipulation in purchase of 35 litres of diesel has been brought on record by the management before this Tribunal. Hence,I find no justification in imposing the punishment of "Stoppage of next due two increments without cumulative effect" by the management. Same is, therefore, quashed.
53. Fifth punishment as mentioned in reference order is 'Stoppage of next due one increment without cumulative effect,' vide order dated 7.5.2003. The charge for this punishment was that on 31.7.2001, due to the negligence and rash driving by the workman, Bus No.1201 at Route No. 247/6, met with an accident in which a loss of Rs.20,000/- occurred and police also challaned u/s 279/337 IPC.
I.D. No.330/10 Page 18 of 21
54. In this regard, case of the workman is that due to break fail in the bus, the accident occurred. In support of its case, management has examined MW 4 Sh. Dinesh Singh, who prepared the damage report in this case. He has deposed in his cross-examination that there was no break fail of the bus. He has further deposed that he has not checked the break of the bus. In my considered opinion, without checking the break of the bus, his deposition that the breaks of the bus were not failed, cannot be believed. No other cogent evidence has been led by the management in this regard. Hence, fifth punishment as contained in reference order is held to be illegal.
55. Sixth punishment in the reference order is 'Penalty of deduction of Rs.200/- and Rs.1666/- from the salary as damages in year 2002 and 2003 respectively'. It has been admitted during the course of arguments that no enquiry has been conducted in this regard. In para 4 of the written statement, it is stated that punishment of Rs.200/- imposed upon the workman was justified as the workman was found guilty of rash and negligent driving and gear box of the bus was damaged due to rash and negligent driving of the workman and that workman was issued show cause notice dated 15.5.01 and he filed reply to the show cause notice dated 23.5.01, therefore, order of recovery from workman was legal and I.D. No.330/10 Page 19 of 21 justified. Similarly, in para 5 of the written statement, it is stated that punishment of Rs.1666/- imposed upon the workman was justified as he was found guilty of rash and negligent driving and gear box of the bus was damaged due to the same and that workman was issued show cause notice dated 22.8.03 and he filed reply thereto dated 11.9.03.
56. No public or eye witness has been examined by management to prove rash and negligent driving by the workman. Moreover, mere registration of FIR against workman does not lead to the conclusion for the present purpose that he was at fault. Hence, I find no justification in imposing the penalty upon workman by passing orders of recovery of Rs.2000/- and Rs.16666/-. Accordingly the said punishment and orders are quashed.
57. In view of above discussion, it is held that management has not been able to prove misconducts as imputed to him. Hence, the penalties imposed upon him as mentioned in term reference no.1(i) to 1(vi) are quashed.
58. As stated above, term reference no.2 regarding demand of time scale has not been pressed for workmen during the course of arguments. Hence, the same is disposed of as not pressed. Award is passed accordingly and reference is answered in these terms. I.D. No.330/10 Page 20 of 21
59. Copy of this award be sent to GNCT of Delhi for publication. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open courts
on 06.09.2012 (MAHAVIR SINGHAL)
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
I.D. No.330/10 Page 21 of 21