ORAL:
SHAILENDRA PandEY, MEMBER (A)
1. This OA has been filed against the order of Respondent No.1, i.e., Delhi Transport Corporation, Patpar Ganj, Delhi No. PPG/AI(T)/CC127/91 dated 01.11.1991 and order of Respondent No.2 i.e. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, No.F-24(2004)/93-Lab-25866 dated 23.09.2004, and it is prayed that these orders be set aside and the increments of the applicant be restored.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is working as a conductor with respondent DTC. On 03.12.1990, he was suspended on the complaint of checking staff, and a charge-sheet was issued to him on 17.12.1990. Subsequently his suspension was revoked on 31.12.1990, and he was allowed to resume his duties. In the inquiry held against him, the applicant was found guilty and the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 01.11.1991 imposed punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The applicant preferred an appeal to the Regional Manager (Appellate Authority) but the same was rejected on 15.06.1992. Being aggrieved, the applicant approached Conciliation Officer, 15 Rajpur Road, Delhi who sent the failure report to respondent No.2 i.e. the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi. The Secretary (Labour) vide impugned order dated 23.09.1993, refused to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication. This order was challenged by the applicant by filing a writ petition in the High Court being W.P. (C) 5316/2007, after a gap of about 14 years. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.07.2007 with liberty to the applicant to move before appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Thereafter, applicant did nothing. After a gap of one year, the applicant filed another Writ Petition challenging the order dated 23.09.1993 of Secretary (Labour) again. The High Court again dismissed the Writ Petition observing as follows:-
“I have considered the submissions made and perused the record. The impugned order dated 23.09.1993, which is challenged in the present petition, has already been challenged by the applicant in the earlier W.P, (C ) No.5316/2007, which was withdrawn by him and liberty was granted to him to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The second writ petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the petitioner is given liberty to approach appropriate forum for availing appropriate remedies as are available to him in accordance with law”.
This has led to the present application.
3. The main ground on which the application has been filed is that the enquiry against the applicant was conducted in a haphazard and perfunctory manner with a prejudiced mind and a pre-determination of finding the applicant guilty of the charges, and that in the enquiry the applicant was denied proper opportunity of defending himself. It is also stated that by the impugned orders, the applicant has been denied the opportunity of representing his case before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court and that the impugned orders need to be set aside as the applicant is entitled to judicial scrutiny of the punishment orders.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the OA.
5. We observe, at the very outset, that the OA is clearly barred by limitation as prescribed under Section-21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985. The punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was inflicted upon the applicant in 1991 and the order of Secretary (Labour) was passed in 2004. The matter has also twice been carried to the High Court, where one Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the second Writ Petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Although the applicant has filed an condonation of delay application vide MA No.697/2012, we do not find that sufficient cause has been adduced for condoning the delay in this case.
It has been emphasized by the Apex Court in the case of D.C.S. Negi Vs. Union of India (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7956/2011) decided on 07.03.2011 that the Administrative Tribunal established under the Act is duty bound to first consider whether the application is within limitation and that an application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause for not doing so within the prescribed period.
6. Keeping this decision in mind and in view of the facts noted above, we dismiss the OA, at the admission stage itself with no order as to costs.