*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 9th May, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 2976/2010
SHRI HARISH CHANDER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.L. Kashyap, Advocate
Versus
M/S PRAGATI INDUSTRIES ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the award dated 20 th March, 2007 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:
"Whether the termination of services of Sh. Harish Chand is illegal and / or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"W.P.(C)2976/2010 Page 1 of 5
in favour of the respondent employer and against the petitioner workman.
2. This writ petition has been preferred after more than two years of the publication of the award and was accompanied with CM No.5918/2010 for condonation of delay in filing the writ petition. Notice only of the application for condonation of delay was issued. No steps were taken for service of the said notice and on 15 th November, 2010 the matter was dismissed in default. An application for restoration was filed which was allowed. However, the petitioner applicant again failed to take steps for service of the notice and the writ petition was again dismissed in default on 8th March, 2011. CM No.5884/2011 has again been filed for restoration of the matter. The said application came up before this Court on 28 th April, 2011 when being prima facie of the opinion that no case for interference with the award of the Industrial Adjudicator also is made out, the counsel for the petitioner was asked to argue on the admissibility of the writ petition. The counsel after some arguments sought adjournment and the matter was posted for today. The counsel for the petitioner has been heard. W.P.(C)2976/2010 Page 2 of 5
3. The Industrial Adjudicator had framed a preliminary issue as to the validity of the departmental inquiry conducted preceding the order of termination of service of the petitioner workman. It was the plea of the petitioner workman that he was not permitted to participate in the departmental inquiry and was stopped at the gate of the factory only and thus the departmental inquiry was bad.
4. The Industrial Adjudicator vide order dated 17th August, 2005 also impugned in this petition held that the petitioner workman intentionally and deliberately did not join the inquiry proceedings on 13th February, 1988 and having himself absented from the proceedings had no right to aver non compliance with the principles of natural justice. The Industrial Adjudicator accordingly held the departmental inquiry preceding termination to be fair and proper and in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner workman before this Court also is of having been prevented from participating in the inquiry. However, the findings in this regard are findings of fact on the basis of the W.P.(C)2976/2010 Page 3 of 5 evidence led before the Industrial Adjudicator. The counsel for the petitioner workman has been unable to show that the said findings of fact are not based on any evidence or are perverse or unreasonable. Without the petitioner so establishing, such findings of fact are non interfereable in exercise of powers of judicial review.
6. Significantly, the order of removal of the petitioner workman is of the year 1988. The industrial dispute was raised after eleven years of the admitted knowledge of termination of service. The Industrial Adjudicator has in the award also held the claim to be stale and the petitioner workman not entitled to any relief for this reason also.
7. The counsel for the petitioner has been unable to make any dent whatsoever on the aforesaid relevant factor. All that is pleaded is that the petitioner workman is poor. However, a workman who is poor and without means of livelihood is expected to act in right earnest. The petitioner herein first slept over his right to raise the dispute for eleven years; even after the award of the Industrial Adjudicator against him, he again went into slumber for over two years; even after the notice of the application for W.P.(C)2976/2010 Page 4 of 5 condonation of delay was issued, in the last two years before this Court also no expediency has been shown and the matter as aforesaid has been conducted in a very lackadaisical manner. It appears that the present proceedings are being agitated by way of a wager. The Industrial Adjudicator in the award has rightly held that since dispute had been raised after such long lapse of time, the respondent employer was justified in presuming the matter to have attained finality and having not preserved all the records.
8. The Industrial Adjudicator has also held the punishment meted out of termination to be proportionate to the charge of verbal abuse.
9. No case for interference with the award is made out. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 09, 2011 'gsr' W.P.(C)2976/2010 Page 5 of 5