In both appeals, the High Court upheld the Lower Courts rejection of Section 33(2)(b) application due to insufficient evidence. The Court affirmed reinstatement with 50% back wages, deeming the quantum fair given the employee's financial dependence.
Appeals dismissed; reinstatement of workman with 50% back wages affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~25&26
+ LPA 82/2016, CM APPL.4489-4490/2016
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant versus RANBIR SINGH ..... Respondent
LPA 83/2016, CM APPL.4491-4492/2016
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant versus RANBIR SINGH ..... Respondent
Appearance: Mr. Manish Garg with Mr. Hitesh K. Bagri, Advocates for appellant in both cases.
None for the respondents in both cases.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
%
O R D E R 08.02.2016
“In the instant case, petitioner has failed to get the preliminary evidence of passengers recorded. In Vikram Kumar (supra), not only
the statements of passengers were recorded but even the said statement was got signed by the Transport Inspector. In Subhash Chander (supra), it has been held that zero tolerance is to be shown to dishonest conduct of the employees. There is no doubt about it but there has to be basic and preliminary evidence to prove the charge of misconduct. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, decision in Subhash Chander (supra) would apply but not to a case like the instant one, which lacks evidence.”
The impugned judgment thereafter proceeded to consider the peculiar circumstances and rejected the DTC’s contentions. 5. Learned counsel for the DTC submitted firstly that adequate opportunity to cross examine its witnesses was provided to the workman during the course of the enquiry and that the line of questioning taken indicated that there could have been no doubt with respect to the workman’s guilt vis-a-vis the charges levelled. It was urged that given the law declared in Ratan Singh (supra) , the Labour Court - and later the learned Single Judge’s conclusion that in the absence of any evidence by the passengers concerned, the enquiry could not validly conclude the arguments of guilt, was unwarranted.
either in the form of names of the passengers, or their statements, on the record. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that with regard to the insufficiency of the materials on record, the concurrent findings bind the DTC. So far as the question of back wages is concerned, one is left wondering how the workman can prove that he was not gainfully employed, i.e., a negative. The Single Judge noticed that according to the DTC, the workman owned only a small patch of agricultural land and that though he perhaps earned some meagre form of income, he had two handicapped children to support. In the circumstances, therefore, the grant of 50% back wages was just and fair. We entirely concur with this exercise of discretion and hold that the appeals are meritless; they are accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
FEBRUARY 08, 2016 / vikas /
2 issues framed by the court
Whether rejection of Section 33(2)(b) application was unsustainable in absence of passenger evidence.
Whether grant of 50% back wages was justified despite prolonged absence of employment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana v. Ratan SinghReferred¶16
State of Haryana v. Ratan Singh, 1977 (2) SCC 491 · Who else cites this
Vikram KumarReferred¶17
Vikram Kumar
Subhash ChanderReferred¶17
Subhash Chander
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Delhi Transport Corporation
Ranbir Singh
S. Ravindra Bhat
Deepa Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
