M/S Britannia Industries Limited vs Uday Vir Singh
2009 Latest Caselaw 2776 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 W.P.(C) No. 19541/2005

%                 Date of Decision: 22 July, 2009

#M/s Britannia Industries Ltd.
                                                     ..... PETITIONER
!                 Through: Mr. Raj Birbal, Sr. Advocate with
                           Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate.

                                  VERSUS
$ Uday Vir Singh
                                                  .....RESPONDENT

^ Through: Ms. Zeba Khair, Advocate.

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) This writ petition filed by M/s Britannia Industries Ltd. (the

petitioner herein) is directed against an order dated 28.01.2005 passed

by Mr. M.K.Gupta, POLC XII, Delhi by which the inquiry issue has been

decided against the petitioner holding that the principles of natural

justice were not followed and for that reason, the inquiry is vitiated.

2 The court below taking note of a Constitutional Bench judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad Vs. B.

Karunakar & Ors (1993) 4 SCC 727 reached to a conclusion that the

inquiry against the delinquent workman in the present case is vitiated for

non-supply of copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent workman. The

relevant portion of the abovementioned judgment of the Supreme Court

is quoted in para 37 at internal page 12 of the impugned order.

3 Ms. Raavi Birbal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner admits that copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the

respondent before decision for his dismissal was taken by the disciplinary

authority. The court below has noted in the impugned order that the

respondent is a poor and an illiterate person. This fact is not disputed by

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In my opinion a

prejudice has been caused to the workman (the respondent herein)

because of non-supply of copy of the inquiry report to him and he

therefore is entitled to have a copy of the inquiry report and gave his

reply to the concerned disciplinary authority so that the same may be

considered before any decision for imposition of penalty is taken against

him.

4 It shall be significant to mention that the court below has rejected

three of the objections relating to validity of the inquiry taken by the

workman. The Labour Court has given cogent reasons in para 32 of the

impugned order for reaching to a conclusion that due opportunity of

hearing was extended by the management to the workman during the

course of inquiry against him. There is no challenge to these findings on

behalf of the workman.

5 The only issue that is now left is non-supply of copy of the inquiry

report to the delinquent workman (the respondent herein). Ms. Raavi

Birbal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner says that the

copy of the inquiry report will now be supplied to the workman and a

show cause notice of proposed penalty will be given to him by the

management within four weeks from today. Ms. Raavi Birbal further

submits that the respondent will be given an opportunity to file his reply

to the inquiry report and to the show cause notice. She says that reply, if

any, received from the workman will be duly considered by the

disciplinary authority before taking a fresh decision regarding penalty to

be imposed against him for misconduct for which he was tried in the

domestic inquiry. This submission made on behalf of the petitioner

appears to be reasonable and there is no difficulty in accepting the same

in view of admitted legal position that the respondent has to be given an

opportunity to put up his stand against the inquiry and the show cause

notice to be served upon him for the penalty proposed by the

management. The consequence of this exercise will be that the

proceedings pursuant to reference pending before the court below will

not survive for any further scrutiny and is to be treated as non-est. In

case the disciplinary authority after taking into account the reply of the

respondent again decides to dismiss the respondent from the service of

the petitioner then the respondent will be at liberty to raise a fresh

industrial dispute with regard to his dismissal as per law.

6 For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is partly allowed to the

extent that the impugned order is modified to the effect that the

petitioner management instead of going to the second stage of proving

the misconduct against the workman before the Labour Court will give a

fresh show cause notice along with copy of the inquiry report to the

respondent within four weeks from today and pass a fresh order after

considering his reply as per law. The proceedings pending before the

Labour Court arising out of reference dated 13.10.1993 stand terminated

as it does not survives for any answer.

7 This writ petition stands disposed of in terms referred above.

8 A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below for

information.

JULY 22, 2009                                   S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'