Shri Brij Pal Singh vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court & ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3972 Del

                                                                                       #54
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       LPA 619/2010

SHRI BRIJ PAL SINGH                                ..... Appellant
                                  Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Advocate

                         versus

PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT & ORS.                  ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocates

%                                     Date of Decision : 27th August, 2010


CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?



                                  JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the

judgment and order dated 1st July, 2010 passed by the learned Single

Judge whereby the appellant's writ petition being WP(C) 4772/1996

has been dismissed. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant had

filed the writ petition impugning the Labour Court's award dated 22nd

July, 1996 wherein it was held that the termination of service of

appellant-workman by respondent No.2-DTC was legal and valid.

2. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that both the learned Single Judge as well as the Labour

Court failed to appreciate that the inquiry proceedings were violative of

principles of natural justice inasmuch as the requisite documents were

never supplied to the appellant. Mr. Arya further submitted that the

learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that as the evidence of the

appellant remained unchallenged, the respondent No.2-DTC had failed

to prove its case in totality.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as well as having

perused the documents on record, we are in agreement with the view of

learned Single Judge that merely because the respondent No.2-DTC had

been proceeded ex-parte, it did not automatically entitle the appellant to

relief. It is significant to mention that in the present case the appellant-

workman had even failed to file a reply to the charge-sheet that had

been issued to him.

4. We are also of the opinion that there has been no violation of

principles of natural justice in the present case inasmuch as all the

documents asked for by the appellant-workman from the Inquiry

Officer were supplied to him. Learned Single Judge has rightly

concluded that the appellant-workman cannot rely upon Exhibit

WWW1/3 to 20 as the said letters were not addressed to the Inquiry

Officer but to Depot Manager and no grievance with regard to the

aforesaid documents was ever raised with the Inquiry Officer.

Moreover, we find that the learned Single Judge has painstakingly and

laboriously dealt with all the contentions and submissions advanced by

the appellant-petitioner.

5. Consequently, the appeal, being bereft of merit, is dismissed but

with no order as to costs.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

AUGUST 27, 2010 js