LexMANAGEMENT OF DELHI TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING versus INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DELHI AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
L MANAGEMENJ' OF OELHI TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING A. v. INDUSTJUM, TRIBUNAL. DELW AND ,ANOTBEll October 30, 1964 (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR.. C.J., K. N. WANCllOO AND M. HmAYATULLAH 11.) Industrial Di.sputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), 1. 33(2)(b)-Whtth1r actwal, ,Ptzyment, of wagu ntctssary-T•ndtr II su/!icleot-Extcurivt in- s1ruct1ori not ntad'e part o/ Standing Or"ers-Brrach of such Instruction whether, pu~i.shabl•-Charge nor sptclfying standing ordtrs ere .• ""htther de/ecrlvA H, a conduct.or in the employ of the appellant undenak.ing was found in posse.sion. of some used ticker• which was forbidden by Instruction No. 12 is.iued under Standing Order 2. After enquiry into his con~uct the charge w .. held proved and on the recommendation of the Enquiry Offi- cer the. Traffic Manager proposed to dismiss hull.. A, this occurred duriog the pendency of an industrial dispute the undenaking by an application sought the approval of the Tribunal to the proposed order of dismissal un8er s. 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes A:t, 1947. The Tribunal after bearing both the panics declined to accord its approval. It held that under Executive Instruction 12 no action could he taken because this Instruction was not made a pan of tho Standing Order and in the Standing Ordera governing the conduct of employees there was no provision that the possession of used tickets amounted to misconduct meriting dismissal. The Tribunal also held that there was no oatistactory proof that one mgnth"• wages were actually paid or could be treated as having been tendered prior to the coming into operation of the order of dismis.'!lll on October 31. 1961, as required by the proviso to s_. 33(2) (b) of the Act. HELO : (i) The Tribunal took too narrow a view of the Standing Orders. By vinuc of Standing Order 2 the Executive Instructions were issued and they are a code of principles and practice which every conductor has to follow rightly and invariably. arid there is a warning that a breach of any Instruction would expose the conductor to disciplinary nction as laid down in para 15(2) of the Regulations. Clause (m) of Standing Order .19 is sufficiently wide to cover a breach of Instructions issued under Standing Order 2. H was charged for breach of Executive In- struction 12 and this brought in the application of Standing Order 19(m) ·read with Standing Order 2 and paragraph IS ( 2) of the Regulation [ 1004 A-F] (ii) The paniculars in the charge were oufficient for H to undet"fland what be was charged with. The omission to mention the appropriate Standing Order or Regulations or •ections of the Act did not vitiate the charge and the Tribunal was in error in holding it to be defective. [1004 G-H] Laxml D.v/ Sugar Mills v. Nand K/shor<, fl9S6] S.C.R. 916 and Lord Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India. [1961] l S.C.R. 39 held inappli- cable. (iii) The Tribunal was wreng in holding that there was no tender of wages. The proviso does not mean that the wages for one month 1bould have been actually paid because in many. c.... the employer can only tender tho amount before the dismissal but cannot force the employee to receive the payment before dismissal becomes effective. In tho present caae tender having been made within time there was no. failure to COUll>ty with s. 33(2)(b) ill 9ia ~. (1003 D-E] 998 B c D E F G H , .. D.T.U. v. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (Hiduyatullah J.) 9,9 A CIVIL APPELLATE 1UIHSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 790 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the Award dated April 20, 1962, o1 the Industrial Tribunal Delhi in O.P. No. 97 of 1961 and Complaint I.D. No. 305 of 1961, published in the Delhi Gazette B dated May 31, 1962. T. R. Bhasin, for the appellant. Goqal Singh, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was d111ivered by . C Hidayatullab J. This appeal by special leave arises from a dispute between the Delhi Transport Undertaking and its employee Shri Hari Chand, a former conductor of one of its omnibusei;, now Assistant Traffic Inspector. By thfs appeal the Delhi Transport Undertaking impugns an award of tho Industrial Tribunal, Delhi dated April 20, 1962. The facts of the case are as follows: Hari D Chand was a conductor on omnibus No. 484 of route No. 21 on March 28, 1960. His omnibus was checked at Kashmirf Gate and ii was found that he had on his person five used tickets of 5 nP. and six used tickets of 10 nP. denominations. This was prohi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.