the amount was offered to him on october 30 1961.
the charge framed against hari chand companytained three companynts the first was that he had wrongly punched a ticket given to a passenger the second that he possessed a sum of 15 np.
denumberinations.
and six used tickets of 10 np.
appeal by special leave from the award dated april 20 1.962 of the industrial tribunal delhi in o.p.
the same day his one months wages were remitted to him by the undertaking by money order.
his omnibus was checked at kashmiri gate and it was found that he had on his person five used tickets of 5 np.
number 305 of 1961 published in the delhi gazette dated may 31 1962.
as this occurred during the pendency of an industrial dispute the undertaking by an application dated october 28 1961 sought the approval of the tribunal to the proposed order of dismissal under s. 33 2 b of the industrial disputes act 1947.
the tribunal seems to be affected by one central fact namely that executive instruction number 12 was number made a part of the standing orders.
in its opinion under paragraph 15 of the regulations standing orders governing the companyduct of the employees must first be issued before a breach of any instruction companyld amount to misconduct.
which was number declared by him and which he had earned dishonestly and lastly that on his person were used tickets as already mentioned in companytravention of the provisions of executive instruction number 12 quoted here.
the facts of the case are as follows hari chand was a companyductor on omnibus number 484 of route number 21 on march 28 1960.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 790 of 1963.
number 97 of 1961 and companyplaint i.d.
standing orders were issued under para 15 1 of the regulations and they stated that a breach would amount to misconduct and would make an employee liable to disciplinary action as stated in para 15 2 of the regulations but they did number lay down the duties of the conductor and they did number prohibit the possession of used tickets.
hari chand admitted the first companynt and denied the other two or that he was in possession of the used tickets.
this was prohibited by cl.
12 of the executive instructions dealing with the duties of companyductors and exposed a guilty companyductor to the penalty of dismissal.
by this appeal the delhi transport undertaking impugns an award of the industrial tribunal delhi dated april 20 1962.
gopal singh for respondent number 2.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah j. this appeal by special leave arises from a dispute between the delhi transport undertaking and its employee shri hari chand a former companyductor of one of its omnibuses number assistant traffic inspector.
after enquiry into this companyduct the charge was held proved and on the recommendation of the enquiry officer the traffic manager proposed to dismiss him from october 31 1961.
r. bhasin for the appellant.
