Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(d) Is Delhi Administration not the appropriate Government to make the reference? If so, to what effect?

(e) Is Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 not applicable in the instant case?

(f) Whether the respondent committed violation of the provisions of section 33 of I.D. Act?

9. The issues were also decided against the petitioner corporation, whereby the Industrial Tribunal held that the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 33-A of the Act is maintainable. On October 22, 1997 an additional issue was framed, as to whether the inquiry which has been conducted by the petitioner was not fair and proper as claimed by the respondent No.1. The Industrial Tribunal was of the view that the inquiry stands vitiated as the competency of Mr.R.D.Bhardwaj, Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry could not be proved and further the petitioner could not be able to produce postal record evidencing sending of the letters to the passengers. Further the statement of the car driver is unsigned. There is no evidence that the statement by the car driver was recorded in his own handwriting. Therefore, the statement of the car driver was of no help to the management and further the statement of the passengers is neither witnessed by the checking staff nor by the conductor or the driver of the car who helped the checking staff at that time. The oral evidence was of no help to the Inquiry Officer to hold the employee guilty. After the evidence of respondent No.1, who was cross examined by the representative of the petitioner, the Industrial Tribunal passed an award dated April 27, 2001 in favour of the respondent No.1 holding that the petitioner has failed to establish that the respondent No.1 has committed any misconduct as alleged against him and directed reinstatement of respondent No.1 with full back wages and continuity of service.

(1) 2004 (10) DLT 493, Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. N.L.Kakkar (2) 1979 (XVI) DLT 220, Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal.

22. The allegation of the respondent No.1 that inquiry was held at the behest of T.I Ram Kumar has no basis. No such contention has been raised by the respondent No.1 in the application under Section 33-A of the Act. If such an allegation is made, surely T.I Ram Kumar was a necessary party so as to controvert the allegations made. The finding insofar as the statement of car driver was unsigned is concerned, the same would not effect the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer inasmuch as there is a report of the T.I Ram Kumar and Harbilas A.T.I. It is not a case of no evidence but there is some evidence before the Inquiry Officer in the form of statement of Ram Kumar T.I and Harbilas A.T.I i.e. the report prepared by them. It is noted that the Industrial Tribunal has not approached the issue in right perspective and fell into error. It is not a case of a perverse finding. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh Civil Appeal No.922/1976, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under: