Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and it was directed that approval in terms of Section 33 2 b of the Act was to be granted to the employer to dismiss the respondent workman.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Delhi Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the employer calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
A reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 32 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the Act for approval of the order of removal.
He had companylected money but had number issued tickets as was found during a checking done by the companycerned officials.
By the impugned judgment by which several LPAs and writ petitions were disposed of, the view of the Tribunal was restored and that of learned Single Judge was set aside.
A charge sheet in this regard was issued to the workman on 22.12.1988 and he submitted his reply on 30.12.1988.
Basing on his admission, he was found guilty in the departmental proceedings and removed from service.
Subsequently on 13.1.1989 and 24.2.1989, the workman admitted his guilt and pleaded for leniency.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The respondent workman was found to have companymitted misconduct while working as a companyductor.
The employer challenged the order of the Tribunal before the Delhi High Court and a learned Single Judge by judgment dated 21.12.2001 in CWP.
The workman assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge by filing Letters Patent Appeal.
Departmental proceedings were initiated against him and he was found guilty.
Accordingly, the approval sought for was rejected.
298/2002 filed by the respondent hereinafter referred to as the workman .
No.6934/2000 and companynected CMs.
held that the Tribunals view was number defensible.
