Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Puran Mal And Anr. on 23 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 VIAD Delhi 135, 106 (2003) DLT 320, 2003 RLR 576, 2004 (1) SLJ 184 Delhi
Author: M Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner management had taken a plea that in case the enquiry proceedings are found to suffer from infirmity, an opportunity be given to the petitioner management to produce the evidence to substantiate the charges levelled against the workman, respondent No.1 herein. The Tribunal in its impugned award dated 3rd December, 1999 has dealt with this aspect which reads as under:-
"On merits I may mention that plea of management about opportunity to lead evidence before court for proving charges cannot be accepted because the enquiry has not been set aside on procedural aspect. Rather the same has been found to be unsustainable because the cross-examination of Asstt. Vigilance Inspector and the statement of conductor. Their statement cannot be changed and even if they are changed, the change cannot be believed. Thus, examination of the same witnesses would not serve any purpose."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakmirattan Cotton Mills Co., Ltd. Vs Workmen wherein it has been held as follows:-
".....It is now well settled as a result of several decisions of this Court, of which we may mention only two, namely, Oriental Textile Finishing Mills, Amritsar v. Labour Court, Jullundur, and Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, that even where it is found that the domestic enquiry held by the employer is due to some omission or deficiency, not valid, the employer can none-the-less support the order of dismissal by producing satisfactory evidence and proving misconduct, when the dispute arising out of the order of dismissal is referred for industrial adjudication."
4. In my view the reasoning of the Tribunal which declined this opportunity on the ground that the enquiry was only set aside on a procedural aspect cannot be sustained as this reasoning is not in accordance with the aforesaid position of law laid down in Lakmirattan Cotton Mills' case (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made no distinction due to the reason that the enquiry was vitiated on procedural or substantial grounds.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Award dated 3rd December, 1999 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, IX, Delhi for a fresh hearing and disposal of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
6. Parties to appear before the Labour Court No.IX on 8th September, 2003 for directions.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No1/workman made a grievance that in spite of several hearings in this Court, no litigation expenses had been awarded to the workman. The grievance is justified. Let a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards litigation expenses be paid to the respondent No.1/workman within six weeks from today as the respondent No.1 is a senior citizen who has already attained the age of superannuation and the prolongation of litigation was partly due to the defect in the enquiry conducted by the petitioner.
8. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of as such.
