Modern Food Industries Emp. Un. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 156 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. RULE.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.

3. Some of the members of the petitioner union were employed with respondent No.3. By an order of reference dated 16.2.1989, the appropriate government referred the dispute relating to the suspension of eight workers of the respondent-Management to the Labour Court with the following terms of reference: -

"Whether the suspension of S/Sh. S.P. Bhargava, K.K. Malhan, M.S. Puri, D.N. Pandey, V.K. Narang and Sh.G.S. Yadav is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

4. During the pendency of the proceedings, some of the employees either settled their matter with the Management or left the employment and the dispute remained only with respect to the suspension of Mr.V.K. Narang and Mr.G.S. Yadav. The aforesaid employees Mr.V.K. Narang and Mr.G.S. Yadav were placed under suspension w.e.f 9th July, 1987 and 7th October, 1987 respectively. While the suspension of Mr.V.K. Narang was based upon an incident relating to quarrel between him and another employee Mr.Dharam Pal Singh wherein abuses, slaps and blows were stated to have been exchanged between each other, the suspension of Mr.G.S. Yadav was due to a Criminal case registered against him on the basis of the complaint of one Ms.Kalpana Devi, Dispatcher of the Management. These orders of suspension were challenged by the workman and, as mentioned above, dispute was referred to the Labour Court with the aforesaid terms of reference. The Labour Court after hearing the parties and after giving opportunities to them to lead evidence made the impugned award on 31st August, 2000 holding, inter alia, that the suspension of the aforesaid workman could not be said to be illegal or unjustified. The award of the Labour Court has now been challenged by the petitioner Union by way of the present petition.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the workmen were suspended without any justification and because of their unjustified suspension, they have not been promoted by the Management though the order of suspension was revoked as far back as in 1992. It is submitted by him that the criminal case registered against Mr.G.S. Yadav on the basis of the complaint of Ms.Kalpana Devi was quashed by this Court in a petition filed by him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thus there was no justification for the Management to suspend Mr.Yadav due to the alleged case registered on the basis of the false complaint, which was later on quashed by this Court. In so far as Mr.V.K. Narang was concerned, the case of the petitioner is that no inquiry was held against the employee and his suspension has already been revoked in 1992. It is submitted that since his suspension was revoked by order dated 12th March, 1992, there was no justification to suspend him in the first instance.

6. The power to suspend the employee has been given to the management by Clause 21 of the Standing Orders duly certified by the appropriate Government. Clause 21 of the certified Standing Orders reliance upon which has been placed by the parties, reads as under: -

"(i) Where a disciplinary proceedings against a workmen is contemplated or is pending or where criminal proceedings against him in respect of any offence involving the moral turpitude are under investigation or trial and the General Manager or the person authorised by him in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place to workmen under suspension, he may, by order is writing suspended him with effect from such date as may be specified in the order. The main reason/reasons for suspension will be indicated in the suspension order itself. A charge-sheet giving in detail the charges of misconduct leading to the suspension shall be served on the workman within a week of suspension.

  (ii)    A workman who is placed under suspension under clause (i) shall, during period of such suspension, be paid a subsistence allowance at the following rates, namely.  
  

 (a)    ....................... "   

 

7. A perusal of Clause 21 of the Standing orders shows that where any disciplinary proceeding against a workmen is contemplated or is pending or where criminal proceedings against him in respect of any offence involving the moral turpitude are under investigation or trial and the General Manager or the person authorised by him in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place to workmen under suspension, an order of suspension can be passed suspending such employee and charge-sheet giving details of the charges of misconduct shall be served on the workman within a week of suspension.

8. The charge-sheet giving details of the charges of misconduct leading to the suspension, according to this clause, was required to be served upon the workmen within a week of suspension. The orders of suspension were passed on 9th July, 1987 and 7th October, 1987. While the charge-sheet was admittedly served upon Mr.V.K. Narang on 15.7.1987, the same was served upon Mr.G.S. Yadav on 12.10.1987. The charge-sheet was, accordingly, served within the period mentioned in the Standing Orders. The only question, therefore, which the Labour Court was required to examine was whether the suspension of these workmen was illegal or unjustified. If the Labour Court came to a finding that the suspension was legal or justified, the Labour Court was not required to look further into the question as to what was the effect of such suspension upon the future prospects of the workmen.

9. The Labour Court referring to the arguments of Mr.G.S. Yadav that his suspension was unfair labour practice and an act of victimisation as the workman was member of the Managing Committee of the Union has observed that admittedly a complaint had been lodged against Mr.G.S. Yadav by one Ms.Kalpana Devi and though the Kalendra under Section 107/150 of the Cr.P.C. filed on the basis of the complaint was quashed by the High Court but the same would not, in any manner, show that the suspension of the workmen on the basis of the said complaint was wholly illegal or unjustified. The Labour Court has further observed that there was no basis to hold that the complaint was lodged by Ms.Kalpana Devi at the instances of the Management. Though services of Ms.Kalpana Devi were regularised, however, that, according to the Labour Court, was not a ground to prove that the complaint was procured from her by the Management. Clause 21 gives a right to the Management to suspend the worker if disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against the workmen. Even if the workman is exonerated on the basis of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Management the same will not prove that initial suspension of the workman was totally illegal or unjustified. The suspension is based on the prima-facie view of the matter in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. Suspension, therefore, both of Mr.V.K. Narang and Mr.G.S. Yadav being based upon disciplinary proceedings being initiated against them for which charge-sheets were also issued to them, in my opinion, was fully legal and justified and the award of the Labour Court holding that the suspension of the workers in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings was legal and justified cannot be said to be perverse. The Labour Court having based its findings on evidence placed before it and having held that no case was made out to hold that the suspension of the workman was on account of their alleged trade-union activities or to hold that the order of suspension was malafide, this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not like to interfere with these findings of the Labour Court. I, therefore, do not see any merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.