The Management Of Shriram ... vs Deputy Labour Commissioner
2009 Latest Caselaw 637 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             W.P.(C) NO.18149/2006

%                                  Date of Decision: 25.2.2009


THE MANAGEMENT OF SHRIRAM INSTITUTE          .... Petitioner
FOR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
                 Through Mr.B.K.Mishra, Advocate

                                   Versus

DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER                   .... Respondents
(IMPLEMENTATION CELL) & ANR.
                Through Ms.Neelam Tiwari for Mr.Rajiv Agarwal,
                         Advocates


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be
      allowed to see the judgment?           NO
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in
      the Digest?                            NO


V.K.SHALI, J. (Oral)

*

1. By virtue of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the award dated 14th October, 2004 passed by

Sh.S.N.Gupta, Presiding Officer, Labour Court-X, Karkardooma Courts,

Delhi in ID No.2216/1995 titled as The Management of M/s Shriram

Institute Research Vs. Its workman Sh.Ajay Kumar Manacktala for

payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent/workman.

2. The challenge to the said grant of compensation is on the ground

that although the learned Labour Court has upheld the action of the

petitioner/Management both in conducting the domestic inquiry

against the workman as being fair, proper and in accordance with the

principles of natural justice and as well as the imposition of

punishment of dismissal, yet the learned Labour Court has shown

totally a mis-placed sympathy to the workman by granting

compensation of Rs.20,000/-.

3. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present writ

petition are that the Government of Delhi in exercise of its power under

Section 10(1) (c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 made a reference on 11th October, 1991 to the Labour Court-X in

the following terms:'

"Whether the dismissal of Sh. Ajay Kumar Manaktala is illegal and /or unjustified, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

4. The respondent /workman appeared in response to the notice

issued by the learned Labour Court and filed his statement of claim

stating therein that he was placed under suspension on 11th June,

1990 on the allegation that he did not proceed on tour to Beladala and

Arki, Solen etc. This was construed to be a misconduct and an

Inquiry Officer was appointed by the petitioner/Management, who went

into the allegations of alleged misconduct. The Inquiry Officer found

the respondent/workman to be guilty of misconduct. On the basis of

the said inquiry report, the petitioner/Management imposed

punishment of dismissal. The learned Labour Court on receipt of the

statement of claim and the reply of the Management framed following

two issues, namely:-

"(i) Whether the inquiry conducted by the management is fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice?

(ii) As per terms of reference."

5. So far as the first issue with regard to the domestic enquiry is

concerned, the learned Labour Court came to a finding that the inquiry

did not suffer from any infirmity and there was no violation of principles

of natural justice. Having held so, the learned labour Court also did not

interfere with the punishment of dismissal imposed on the workman

and on the contrary observed that the allegations against the

respondent/workman were very serious in nature inasmuch as he had

disobeyed the orders of his Senior Officers to work at a transferee place.

These were the main grounds on which the learned Labour Court did

not interfere with the imposition of punishment and the prayer of the

petitioner for reinstatement was also turned down.

6. But the Labour Court curiously before disposing of the matter

finally, observed that since the respondent had rendered service with

the petitioner/ Management, therefore, the interest of justice would be

met in the case he is granted compensation. For award of

compensation, the Labour Court has taken into consideration the

factum that the respondent/workman has served for 12-13 years the

petitioner/management and that he was getting wages of Rs.1,440/-

per month.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned

counsel for the respondent has expressed her inability to assist the

Court as she has prayed for date on account of Mr.Agarwal, Advocate

being busy in another Court.

8. The request for adjournment was disallowed as sufficient time

was given and it is already 4.00 p.m. The respondent/workman is also

present and states that the compensation which has been awarded to

him is very meager and deserves to be enhanced.

9. I have carefully considered the record. I feel that the Labour

Court has fallen into grave error by granting compensation to the

respondent/workman despite the fact that it has upheld the fairness

and the validity of the inquiry as well as the punishment which has

been imposed on him. Once this was done, it was not only illegal but

also improper on the part of the learned Labour Court to have shown

total mis-placed sympathy with the respondent/workman in granting

him the compensation.

10. This is not a case where the learned Labour Court has interfered

with the quantum of punishment imposed on the respondent/workman

by substituting any other punishment, which would have warranted

the grant of some financial benefit as to the respondent/workman.

11. As a matter of fact, the Labour Court has rightly observed that

the misconduct of the respondent/workman in disobeying the orders of

the Senior Officers was something very serious in nature inasmuch as it

not only creates indiscipline in the Organization and prevents its

smooth functioning but also is bound to set a bad precedent in the

Organization and give impetus to persons with similar proclivities to

indulge in disobeying the rightful orders of the senior Officers.

12. For the forgoing reasons, the award dated 14.10.2004 to the

extent of grant of compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the

respondent/workman is set aside as being unwarranted and exceeding

its jurisdiction. To that extent, the writ petition of the petitioner is

allowed. No order as to costs.

FEBRUARY 25, 2009                                           V.K.SHALI, J.
RN