Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/2372/2003 of BIJENDER SINGH Vs D.T.C. on 13 December 2004
Nor % 13.12.2004 Present: Mr.M. Taiyab Khan, Adv., for the petltoner. +W.P.fa.No.2372/2003 This case has been called out twice but nobody behalf of the workman,'' Even on the last date ofI' appears on hearing. nobody appeared respondent/workman. Thus, there is no court except to hear this
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
I
4IQ.1i-.a.D.riOrdersSr.Nor%13.12.2004Present:Mr.M.TaiyabKhan,Adv.,forthepetltoner.+W.P.fa.No.2372/2003ThiscasehasbeencalledouttwicebutnobodyI'appearsonbehalfoftheworkman,''Evenonthelastdateofhearing.nobodyappearedonbehalfoftherespondent/workman.Thus,thereisnooptionbeforethecourtexcepttohearthismatterexparteandproceedwiththematterinaccordancewithlaw.ChallengeinthispetitionrniderArticle226oftheConslltiitionofIndiaistotheorder',dated12,12,2002passedbythePresidingOfficer,,hidustrialTrlbimal-II,KarkardoomaCourts,Delhi,videwhichherejectedtheapplicationofthemanagementimderSection33(2)(b)ofthfeIndustrialDisputesAct,1947(tiereinafterreferredtoas!’theActjanddeclmeditsapproval.Theworkmanwhowasworkingasadriverwiththehadimaiithorisedlyabsentedrespondent/CorjDorationSignature Not Verifiedhimselfduringtheperiod1.6,1992to14,7,1992[.][This][was]Digitally Signed By:AMULYACertify that the digital file andiphysical file have been compared andthe digital data is as per the physicalfile and no page is missing.
W,P,fO.V.Kr^-
SHRISHYAMSALES02-03
t
•-i
/b
OrdersSr,No.DatetreatedasmisconductbytheCorporationunderPara19Qi)and(m)oftheStandingOrdersgoverningtheconductofjDTCemployees.Afterconductingadomesticenquiry,thedisciplinaryauthorityreniovedtheworkmanfromservicevideorderdated17,5.1996/Anapplicationwasfiledunder4,::Section33(2)(b)oftheIndustrialDisputesAct,1947beforetheIndustrialTribunalforgrantofitsapproral,whichasalreadynoticedabove,wasdeclinedvideorderdated12.12.2002.Videorderdated5,3.1999,theTribunalheldthattheconductedtheGoi^rorationwasnotfairandenquirybyproperandfinallydeclineditsapproval.Attheveryoutset,itbeusefultonotetherecordedthemayfindingsbyIndustrialTribunalwhilerejectingtheapplicationaswellasdecidingthe'otherissueagainsttheCorporation,Therecordedfindingsreadasimder;- "...Hefurtheradmittedthatwasrespondentnotinformedthathisleaveapplicationhadbeenrejected.Headmittedthatleaveapplicationofrespondentdated15,7..92wasrejectedbytheauthority.IhavegonethroughthedocumentEx.AWl/1inwhichtheperiodofabsenceofrespondenti.e.From..2372/2003
SHRISHYAMSALES02-03,
-'V>m
.1*'
’i.
W.PiCIHo.2372/2003SHYAMSALES02-03
■i.
i