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