Delhi High Court
New Delhi Municipal Committee, ... vs Shri G.P. Mittal, Presiding ... on 3 September, 2004
Author: M B Lokur
Bench: M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 12th November, 1992 passed by the learned Labour Court in LCID No. 172/89.
2. The question that was referred for the consideration of the learned Labour Court is as follows:-
''Whether the dismissal of services of Shri Devi Singh is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?''
3. There were certain allegations of misconduct against the Respondent workman. Pursuant to this, a departmental enquiry was held against him and the Enquiry Officer gave a report on 12th November, 1986 holding that the charges have not been proved.
4. About 1 1/2 years later the Respondent workman along with several other workmen participated in a dharna at the gate of the headquarters of the Petitioner. During the dharna, the Respondent workman was served with an order dated 27th May, 1988 passed by his disciplinary authority dismissing him from service. The disciplinary authority was of the view that the Enquiry Officer had not correctly appreciated the facts of the case. Consequently the disciplinary authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer and held the Respondent workman guilty of the allegations of misconduct and on this basis dismissed him from service.
5. The learned Labour Court observed that the case against the Respondent workman was based on the testimony of two witnesses that is PW-1 and PW-3 but neither of them gave the cause of misbehavior or the objectionable words alleged to have been used by the Respondent workman. While this, by itself, may not be sufficient to hold that the Respondent workman had not committed any misconduct, what is of greater significance is that the record of the Enquiry Officer was not placed before the learned Labour Court. The statements of the witnesses and the report of the Enquiry Officer were not produced before the learned Labour Court and nor was any witness examined before the learned Labour Court to prove the misconduct against the Respondent workman. In other words, there was no evidence before the learned Labour Court to show that the Respondent workman had committed any misconduct. Therefore, I see no error in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Labour Court.
6. I am also in agreement with the learned Labour Court that the timing of the order of dismissal is a little odd. The Enquiry Officer had submitted his report in November, 1986. The disciplinary authority seems to have sat over the enquiry report for almost a year and a half and thereafter, while a dharna was going on, an order was passed dismissing the Respondent workman from service. If the conduct of the Respondent workman was such that he was required to be dismissed from service surely the discipinary authority would not have sat over the enquiry report for a year and a half. It does appear from the above facts that the order of dismissal was passed only with a view to victimize the Respondent-Workman who was on a dharna.
7. In any case, since the allegations against the Respondent workman were not proved before the learned Labour Court due to a complete lack of evidence, there is no option but to a sustain the impugned Award and dismiss the writ petition. It is ordered accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
