Manjeet Industries vs Ish Narayan And Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 2857 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

         +      W.P.(C.) No. 10444/2009 & CM No.9142/2009

%                  Date of Decision: 27th July, 2009


# Manjeet Industries
                                                            ..... PETITIONER
!                  Through:   Mr. S.P. Gautam, Advocate.

                                  VERSUS

$ Ish Narayan and Anr.
                                                          .....RESPONDENTS

^                  Through:   Nemo.

CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

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

directed against an award dated 24.07.2008 passed by Ms. Mamta Tayal,

Presiding Officer Labour Court I, Delhi by which an amount of Rs.1 lac has

been awarded in favour of the workman (respondent No. 1 herein) in lieu

of his claim for reinstatement and back wages for illegal termination of

his services by the petitioner w.e.f. 04.11.1999.

2     Heard.

3     Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this writ

petition are that respondent No. 1 being the worker was appointed as

Helper by the petitioner for about 7 years prior to termination of his

services w.e.f. 04.11.1999. His last drawn wages was Rs.2,348/- per

month. However, as per case of the management (the petitioner herein),

respondent No. 1 was dismissed from service after holding an ex-parte

domestic inquiry against him w.e.f. 08.02.2001. After respondent No. 1

was terminated by the petitioner from its service w.e.f. 04.11.1999,

respondent No. 1 had made a complaint to the Labour Office on

04.05.2000 but the petitioner refused to keep him back. He also sent a

demand notice to the management demanding his reinstatement through

his Advocate. He therefore raised an industrial dispute with regard to his

termination which was referred by the appropriate Government for

adjudication to the Labour Court and was registered as ID No.625/2001.

4 In the statement of claim filed by respondent No. 1 before the

Labour Court, he alleged illegal termination of his services by the

petitioner w.ef. 04.11.1999 without giving any opportunity to prove the

alleged charges against him. He categorically stated in his statement of

claims that he was neither served with any charge-sheet or the

documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer to hold him guilty of

charges of alleged theft. As against this case of the workman, the

petitioner in its written statement filed before the Labour Court took a

stand that respondent No. 1 was removed from its service as he was

found stealing goods after holding an inquiry in accordance with

principles of natural justice. The further case of the management before

the Labour Court was that the workman was informed about the inquiry

proceedings through his Advocate Mr. H.K. Pathak, Advocate who had

sent the demand notice for reinstatement. It is an admitted case of the

management that no chargesheet or documents were supplied to

respondent No. 1 before he was found guilty of charges leveled against

him by the Inquiry Officer. The Industrial Adjudicator vide its order dated

30.01.2008 (Annexure P-10 at page 49 of the paper book) has held that

the inquiry against respondent No. 1 was vitiated for non-observation of

principles of nature justice. The court below on the basis of evidence has

found that though the management was having the local address of

respondent No. 1 but despite that it did not send either copy of the

chargesheet or the documents relied upon against the workman to him at

his local address and chose simply to intimate Mr. H.K. Pathak, Advocate

who had sent a demand notice on behalf of the workman. I have gone

through the order dated 30.01.2008 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator

by which the inquiry issue has been decided against the management.

Upon going through the said order, I find that the findings recorded by

the Industrial Adjudicator in the said order are based upon cogent

material and I do not find any reason to take a different view on this

aspect then what has been taken by the court below.

5 After the inquiry issue was decided by the Industrial Adjudicator

against the petitioner, opportunity was given to the petitioner to prove

the alleged misconduct against the workman (respondent No. 1 herein)

but despite opportunity given to the management, the petitioner chose

not to lead any evidence to prove the alleged misconduct and under the

circumstances, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned

award wherein it has been held that the petitioner has failed to prove the

alleged misconduct of the workman. The termination of respondent No. 1

from the service of the petitioner has been found to be unjustified and

illegal and in the considered opinion of this Court, amount of Rs. 1 lac

awarded to the workman as compensation in lieu of his claim for

reinstatement and back wages by no means can be said to be

unreasonable or excessive. I therefore in exercise of extraordinary

discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India would not like to interfere in the impugned award.

6 For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ

petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. Stay application is

also dismissed.

JULY 27, 2009                                  S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'