Citation : 2009 Latest Caselaw 2642 Del
Judgement Date : 15 July, 2009
* 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'
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!