Fore School Of Management vs Navin Chandra Kandpal
2009 Latest Caselaw 3807 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C.) No. 11719/2009

%                 Date of Decision: 16th September, 2009

#     FORE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
                                                      ..... PETITIONER
!                 Through:   Mr. P.R. Rajhans, Advocate.

                                VERSUS

$ NAVIN CHANDRA KANDPAL
                                                          .....RESPONDENT

^                 Through:   Mr. Rajiv Nanda, 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)

C.M. No. 11663/2009 in W.P.(C.) No. 11719/2009

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

W.P.(C.) No. 11719/2009 and C.M. No. 11662/2009 (for stay)

The management of Fore School of Management in this writ

petition, seeks to challenge an industrial award dated 03.09.2008 in I.D.

No. 19/2007 directing reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with back

wages.

2. Heard on admission.

3. The petitioner was appointed as an Attendant with the petitioner

management w.e.f. 01.05.2002. After he had completed probation

period of one year, he was confirmed in service as Attendant w.e.f.

01.05.2003. However, his services were terminated by the petitioner

management w.e.f. 31.07.2005 without holding any inquiry against him

or giving any opportunity to him to prove the alleged misconduct. The

respondent No. 1 aggrieved by his termination had raised an industrial

dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government in the

Government of NCT of Delhi for adjudication to the Labour Court. The

petitioner was duly served with the notice of proceedings pending before

the Labour Court. Since nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner

management despite service, the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte by

the Labour Court vide order dated 29.09.2007. This ex-parte order

passed against the petitioner was set aside at the request of the

petitioner vide order dated 26.11.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed

its written statement in which it was alleged that the respondent No. 1

was removed from service as he was found sleeping during duty hours

and when he was warned, he had misbehaved and threatened the

management. It was alleged that since the respondent No. 1 did not

improve, the petitioner was left with no other alternative but to terminate

his services. After filing of the written statement the petitioner again

stopped appearing in the matter and, therefore, he was again proceeded

ex-parte by the Labour Court vide order dated 18.08.2008.

4. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that no inquiry into the

alleged misconduct was held by it against the respondent No. 1. The

respondent No. 1 was a confirmed employee working with the petitioner

management at the time of his termination. He could not have been

removed by the petitioner without holding an inquiry into the charges

against him. The termination of respondent No. 1 by the petitioner from

its service was in violation of principles of natural justice. The

respondent No. 1 has produced ample evidence before the Labour Court

to show that he was working sincerely and honestly with the petitioner

management and rather, in support of his said contention, he had placed

a certificate issued to him by the petitioner management (Ex. WW-1/2)

certifying that the respondent No. 1 was working with them for the last

three years and he was obedient, hardworking, sincere, honest and a

decent person. When the petitioner management itself admits that the

respondent No. 1 was a hardworking and an obedient workman, it does

not stand to reason how he could be removed by the petitioner

management without holding any inquiry against him into the alleged

charges that he was found sleeping during duty hours or that he had

allegedly disobeyed and threatened the management.

5. In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any infirmity,

illegality or perversity in the impugned award passed by the Industrial

Adjudicator in favour of respondent No. 1 directing his reinstatement with

back wages. The petitioner should reinstate the respondent No. 1 in its

service and pay him back wages as directed in the impugned award.

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner management to hold an

inquiry into the alleged charges against the respondent No. 1 and take

such action as may be deemed appropriate as per law.

I do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby

dismissed in limine.

September 16, 2009,                                    S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'