DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus SHYAM LAL

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 508 · Decided: 12-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
v. 
SHYAM LAL 
AUGUST, 12, 2004 
[S.N.VARIAVA AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 33(J)(b)-Approval of order 
of removal from services-Grant of-Workman committing misconduct-
Removal from services-Tribunal rejecting approval of removal order 
C sought, however High Court granting the same-Division Bench upholding 
order of Tribunal-On appeal, held: Evidence considered was not in the 
nature of hearsay evidence and there is admission of guilt by the workman 
which is the best piece of evidence-Also Division Bench based its 
conclusions on cases on entirely different footings-Hence, order of 
D Division Bench set aside and matter remitted back. 
Respondent-workman was working as a conductor. It was found 
during checking done by officer concerned that respondent collected 
money but did not issue tickets. Departmental proceedings were 
E initiated and on finding him guilty charge sheet was issued against him. 
Thereafter respondent admitted his guilt and on basis of the same, he 
was removed from service. Appellant-Corporation made reference to 
the Tribunal for approval of the order of removal. Tribunal did not 
grant approval holding that the admission was really ofno consequence; 
that the officer who had conducted enquiry had no direct evidence; and 
that the statement made by the person who had paid the amount in 
question before the officer conducting the checking was in the nature 
of hearsay evidence. Appellant-employer challenged the order. High 
Court allowed the writ petition and granted approval for dismissal of 
the respondent-workman. Aggrieved respondent filed Letters Patent 
G Appeal and the order of the Tribunal was upheld and that of the Single 
Judge was set aside. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-employer contended that the High Court erred in 
considering the instant case along with other cases which related to 
H unauthorized absence and the consequence thereof. 
508 
D.T.C. v. SHY AM LAL [PASAYAT, J.] 
509 
Respondent-workman contended that the Tribunal has analysed A 
the factual and the legal position in its proper perspective and its 
refusal to accord approval cannot be termed to be arbitrary. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD =--Tribunal's conclusions are prima facie not correct. The B 
statement made by the passenger, who had paid excess money, to the 
checking officer is not in the nature of hearsay evidence. Also the effect 
of the admission regarding guilt by respondent have not been consid-
ered in the proper perspective. It is a fairly settled position in law that 
admission is the best piece of evidence against the person making the C 
admission. It is, however, open to the person making the admission to 
show why the admission is not to be acted upon. Furthermore, Division 
Bench while dealing with Letters Patent Appeal filed by the workman 
based its conclusions on other cases where the factual background was 
not similar to those invo_Ived in the instant .case. Therefore, order of D 
Division Bench of High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted 
back to it for consideration of the case on its own merits in accordance 
with law. [511-B-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9610 of 
~ 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.9.2002 of the Delhi High 
Court in L.P.A. No. 298 of 2002. 
T.L.V. Iyer and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellant. 
H.K. Chaturvedi and Rishi Kesh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
ARIJIT PASAYAT. J. : Delhi Transport Corportion (hereinafter 
referred to as the 'employer') calls in question legality of the judgment G 
rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi Court in Letters Patent Appeal 
No. 298/2002 filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 
'workman') 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : 
H 
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondent-workman was found to have committed misconduct 
while working as a conductor. He had collected money but had not issued 
tickets as was found during a checking done by the concerned officials. 
Departmental proceedings were initiated against him and he was found 
guilty. A charge sheet in this regard was issued to the workman on 
B 22.12.1988 and he submitted his reply on 30.12.1988. Subsequently on 
13.1.1989 and 24.2.1989, the workman admitted his guilt and pleaded for 
leniency. Basing on his admission, he was found guilty in the departmental 
pro

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.