I. S. MEHTA, J.
1. Challenge is to the impugned order dated 21.03.2003, passed in
O.P. No. 494/93, by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal – II,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „learned
Tribunal‟), wherein the learned Tribunal dismissed the approval
application made by the present petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ignoring the material evidence on record.
2. The brief facts as stated are that the respondent No. 1 i.e., Shri
Surinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the „respondent-workman’),
was employed as a conductor with the petitioner-management i.e., the
Delhi Transport Corporation. It is alleged that the respondent-workman,
during his employment with petitioner-management, remained absent
from duty without requisite authorisation for a period of 65 days between
March, 1992 to December, 1992. As a result, a charge-sheet being memo
no. RD-3/SP/CS/85/93/1303 dated 23.04.1993 was issued to the
respondent-workman alleging that the acts of the respondent-workman
amounted to misconduct within the meaning of standing orders governing
the conduct of DTC employees. The Senior Manager (Technical) vide
memo no. RT-3/AM(T)/CS-85/93/2778 dated 28.07.1993 issued a show
cause notice proposing to impose the penalty of removal from service
upon the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman tendered his
reply dated 06.08.1993 to the aforesaid show cause notice. Thereafter, the
respondent-workman was removed from the services of the petitioner-
management vide order no. RHN:III/AI(T)/CS-85/93/3073 dated
30.08.1993. The petitioner-management moved an approval application
before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 praying for approval of the action taken i.e., removal
of respondent-workman from the services of the petitioner-management.
The learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.10.1998 framed the issues and
further additional issue was framed on 03.09.2002.
Source: Indian Kanoon