Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Abheraj Jaswal vs M/S. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 2642 Del

Citation : 2009 Latest Caselaw 2642 Del
Judgement Date : 15 July, 2009

Delhi High Court
Abheraj Jaswal vs M/S. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing ... on 15 July, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No. 7865/2009

%                  Date of Decision: 15 July, 2009


# Abheraj Jaswal
                                                    ..... PETITIONER
!                  Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, Advocate.

                                 VERSUS

$ M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company
  Limited & Ors.
                                                    .....RESPONDENTS

^ Through: Mr. Raj Birbal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Raavi Birbal for the respondents.

CORAM:

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper 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

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) CM No. 4207/2009 (Exemption) in W.P.(C) No. 7865/2009

Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No. 7865/2009

This writ petition filed by the workman (petitioner herein) is

directed against an award dated 26.11.2008 passed by Dr. Shahabuddin,

POLC XVI, Delhi rejecting his claim for reinstatement and back wages.

2     Heard.

3     Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was

employed by respondent No. 1 as Steel Mechanic 18 years prior to his

dismissal from service w.e.f. 01.07.1998. The petitioner was served with

a charge-sheet on 12.03.1997 (at pages 30-32 of the paper book). The

charge-sheet was issued to him as per clauses 20(d) & 20 (i) of the

Certified Standing Orders applicable in the establishment of respondent

No. 1. Domestic inquiry was held against the petitioner in which he was

found guilty of charges leveled against him. The charge against him was

that though he was employed by the petitioner but he diverted the

customers of respondent No. 1 to a third party M/s Krishna Enterprises

and was thereby acting dishonestly in the course of his employment with

the respondent No. 1. The specific incidents of different dates when the

petitioner had diverted the customers of respondent No. 1 to M/s Krishna

Enterprises were disclosed in the charge-sheet served upon the

petitioner. The Court below on the basis of evidence adduced before it

vide its order dated 06.11.2008 has decided the inquiry issue against the

workman holding that the principles of natural justice were duly adhered

to in the conduct of domestic inquiry against the petitioner.

4 I do not find any perversity either in the order dated 06.11.2008 by

which inquiry issue was decided against the workman or order dated

26.11.2008 by which the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the

petitioner has been found to be justified. These orders do not call for any

interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary

writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It may be noted

that the findings of fact to the effect that the petitioner in the course of

his employment with respondent No. 1 had been diverting the customers

of respondent No. 1 dishonestly and with mala-fide intention to M/s

Krishan Enterprises operating its business from 319-20, Aap Ka Bazar,

Gurgaon and was thereby causing loss to respondent No. 1 management,

is based upon cogent evidence discussed in the impugned award. The

petitioner has not assailed these findings of fact recorded by the Labour

Court in the impugned award anywhere in the present writ petition. Mr.

Dinesh Yadav learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was

repeatedly asked to show even a line in the whole of the writ petition

where the petitioner might have controverted the finding of fact in regard

to the above in his petition but Mr. Yadav could not show that the

petitioner has controverted the findings of fact contained in the

impugned order.

5 Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition

which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

JULY 15, 2009                                    S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter