Delhi District Court
Industrial Tribunal/121/2004 on 3 April, 2007
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. I.S. MEHTA:
PRESIDING OFFICER: INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.I:
ROOM NO. 02 : THIRD FLOOR: KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
SHAHDARA: DELHI-110032.
ID No. 121/04/06.
BETWEEN
The management of
M/s. Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
AND
Its workman
Sh. Om Prakash S/o Shri Kalu Ram
C/o Delhi Parivahan Majdoor Sangh
5239, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-110006.
AWARD
Secretary (Labour), Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi
has referred the present dispute, arising between the above named parties for
adjudication vide notification No.F.24(4255)/03/Lab./3122-26 Dated 05.03.2004
with the following term of the reference :-
"Whether the punishment of stoppage of next due two
increments with cumulative effect imposed upon Shri Om
Prakash S/o Shri Kalu Ram by the management vide its
order dated 30.08.20000 is illegal and/or unjustified and if
so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect ?"
1.In the statement of claim, the workman in support of his case has -2- stated that the workman was employed with the management in the year 1982 as Conductor with badge no. 15762 and presently posted at GTKR Depot of the DTC. During the course of his employment with the management, he had an unblemished record of service. It is further stated that he has been imposed punishment of stoppage of next due two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 30.08.2000 on the basis of false and baseless allegations, the charge sheet was issued and the management conducted the enquiry without due opportunity of defence to the workman and the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and unreasoned. The workman is the member of the union namely Delhi Parivehan Mazdoor Sangh (Regd.), which has espoused the cause of the workman vide its resolution dated 18.04.2001.
2. It is further stated that failing to get any favourable response from the management, the workman raised an industrial dispute, but due to adamant attitude of the management, no settlement arrived at before the conciliation officer. It is prayed that the order of punishment dated 30.08.2000 be set aside and the workman be granted all consequential benefits including full wages.
3. On the other hand, the management has filed written statement and stated that the workman committed a gross misconduct and the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer was in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It is stated that the allegation against the workman is that ; o 28.04.1998 while the workman on duty with Bus No. 3626, Delhi- Hardoi (UP), -3- the checking officials checked the bus and found four passengers with less denomination of tickets and on asking about the ticket, they replied to checking officials that they boarded the bus from Delhi to Harpal Pur and gave Rs. 452/- to the conductor for the same, but conductor issued them tickets only to Farrukhabad. When, the workman confronted with the passengers by the checking officials, the workman admitted his guilt and thereafter, issued four tickets from Farrukhabad to Harpalpur and handed over the same to checking officials. This misconduct committed by the workman caused loss to the management and accordingly, the enquiry was conducted in fair and proper manner and on basis of the enquiry report, the workman was given the punishment of next due two increments with cumulative effect.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. As per terms of reference.
2. Whether the claim is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objection raised by the management in the written statement ?
3. Whether the enquiry conducted by the management was free and fair ?
4. If the answer of issue no. 3 is in the affirmative, whether the workman has misconducted himself ?
5. Relief.
5. The issue no. 3 (Issue of Enquiry) is treated as preliminary issue and parties have led their respective evidence on this issue. -4-
6. The management in order to prove the enquiry valid and proper examined- Mrs. Sunita Chauhan- Enquiry Officer who has proved her affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied upon the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/4.
7. The workman has submitted that during the employment with the management, the workman continued to work hard honestly, sincerely, faithfully, with devotion to his duty. He has further submitted that the allegations alleged against the workman are false and workman was never subjected to any punishment in the past as he was having unblemished service record. He has further submitted that the enquiry officer is in the hands of the management who is biased and no proper and fair opportunities of being heard were given to the workman during the enquiry proceedings, therefore, the enquiry proceedings may kindly be set aside.
8. The workman has further submitted that the management has awarded the punishment of stoppage of next due two increments with cumulative effect, which is very hard and the same is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, Learned AR for the management has submitted that the workman committed misconduct during the employment with the management and he was rightly punished by the management for his misconduct.
-5-
10. I have heard the parties and have carefully gone through the record and my findings are as under :-
11. The enquiry officer in her affidavit has proved the charge sheet Ex.MW1/1, wherein it is clearly mentioned that on 28.04.1998, while the workman was on duty in Bus No. 3626, Delhi- Hardoi (UP), the workman was caught red handed by the checking officials in the bus by giving less denomination tickets after collecting full fair from the passengers. On checking, four passengers were found with less denomination of tickets and on asking about the ticket, they replied to checking officials that they boarded the bus from Delhi to Harpal Pur and gave Rs. 452/- to the conductor for the same, but conductor issued them tickets only to Farrukhabad and on the workman confronted with the passengers by the checking officials, the workman admitted guilt on his part and thereafter, issued four tickets from Farrukhabad to Harpalpur. This misconduct committed by the workman caused a great loss to the management and accordingly, the management issued a charge sheet Ex.MW1/1 to the workman. During the cross-examination, the workman has admitted that during the enquiry proceedings, the workman was given opportunity to take help of Labour Welfare Inspector, but the same was denied by him. He has further admitted that he had received all the documents by the management to submit the reply to the charge sheet. The admission made by the workman during his cross-examination is reproduced as under :-
"It is correct that I have received all the
documents by the management to submit the
-6-
reply of the charge sheet. It is correct that I
have been offered help of the Labour Welfare
Inspector during my enquiry, but the same
was denied by me. I have received the show
cause notice and I replied the same to the
management."
12. Therefore, the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer against the
workman is in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in fair and
proper manner and found the workman guilty of the charges levelled against
him. The enquiry officer submitted her enquiry report Ex.MW1/4 and on the
basis of which, the workman was given the punishment of stoppage of next due
two increments with cumulative effect. The Issue of Enquiry is already decided
in favour of the management and against the workman.
13. So far, the quantum of punishment to the workman is concerned, the management has awarded the punishment of stoppage of next due two increments with cumulative effect. Since, the punishment awarded to the workman is just stoppage of next due two increments with cumulative effect only, therefore, I find no reason to interfere into.
14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and discussions made above, I hold that the workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed. The reference is answered in favour of the management and against the workman. Award is passed, accordingly.
-7-Dated: 03.04.2007.
[ I.S. MEHTA ] PRESIDING OFFICER:
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.I:
DELHI.
[ One Separate Copy Attached ]