Delhi High Court
Harris Engineers vs Government Of National Capital ... on 29 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 VIAD Delhi 205, 97 (2002) DLT 237, (2002) IIILLJ 510 Del, 2003 (1) SLJ 154 b Delhi
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1 Rule.
2. With consent of learned counsel for parties
petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award of Labour
Court dated 19.11.1999 in terms whereof the respondent
workman was to be reinstated with full backwages and
continuity of service.
4. The controversy in the present petition arises as
to whether respondent No. 2 workman was turned out of his job
or he abandoned the job. Admittedly no enquiry has been
held against respondent No.2 workman.
5. The Labour, Court which was dealing with the
controversy in issue observed as under:
After hearing arguments of A.R. of
the parties, I find that there are two
ways by which the services of a workman
can be terminated. In the first instance
the management has to comply with
the provisions contained Under Section 25F of I.D.
Act. This provision is not applicable to
the present case. In the other case the
services of a workman can be dispensed
with no account of misconduct. If the
workman was absent from duty as alleged
by the management which amounted to
misconduct on his part then the management
was duty bound to hold an enquiry about
the misconduct. No enquiry has been held
by the management as has been admitted by
MW1 in his cross examination where the
stated that no chargesheet has been
served upon the workman for his absence.
In absence of any enquiry the plea of
abandonment taken by the management
cannot be relied upon. So it can be
safely said that the workman did not
abandoned the job voluntarily. There are
also allegations of misconduct against the
workman with regard to his use of abusive
language in all co-workers. For that
also it was obligatory on the management
to have held an enquiry. The management
has thus failed to prove that the workman
himself abandoned the job."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in
view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Workman
of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (p) Ltd.
v. Management and Ors., , the
Labour Court was bound to make enquiries irrespective of the
fact whether an enquiry had been held or not. In this
behalf learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the observation of the Supreme Court in aforesaid judgment
at page 606 as under:
"From those decision, the following
principle broadly emerge:-
(4) Even if no enquiry has been held
by an employer or if the enquiry held by
him is found to be defective, the
Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about
the legality and validity of the order,
has to give an opportunity to the
employer and employee to adduce evidence
before it. It is open to the employer to
adduce evidence for the first time
justifying his action; and"
7. It is thus contended that in view of the plea of
the petitioner that the merit of the controversy should have
been examined by the Labour Court, which has not been done
in the present case, the impugned award is liable to be set
aside.
8. In view of the aforesaid it is agreed by learned
counsel for parties that the impugned order be set aside
with a direction to Labour Court to examine the merits of
the controversy raised between the parties on the basis of
the evidence already on record before the Labour Court.
Ordered accordingly. Impugned award dated 19.11.1999 is set
aside.
9 Labour Court is directed to pass a fresh order on
merits after considering the evidence on record and the same
be done preferably within a period of four months.
10. Writ petition stands disposed of.
11. Parties to appear before Labour Court on 25th
February, 2002.
