Delhi High Court
The Punjab State Co-Operative ... vs Dilbagh Singh on 2 August, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 2nd August, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 8216/2008 & CM No.15811/2008 (for stay)
% THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY
& MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mohd. Ehraz Zafar, Adv.
Versus
DILBAGH SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10 th August, 2006
of the Industrial Adjudicator deciding the preliminary issue (as to the
legality and validity of the domestic inquiry held by the petitioner
employer) framed in adjudication of the dispute raised by the respondent
workman against the petitioner employer. The Industrial Adjudicator has
concluded that the petitioner employer had failed to prove that the
domestic inquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner. After
holding so, opportunity was given to the petitioner employer to prove the
misconduct alleged, before the Industrial Adjudicator.
2. This petition was preferred after more than two years of the
aforesaid order of the Industrial Adjudicator. Though notice of the writ
petition was issued but no stay of proceedings before the Industrial
Adjudicator was granted.
3. The counsel for the respondent workman contends that since then
the parties have led their evidence before the Industrial Adjudicator and the
matter is at the stage of final arguments.
4. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner employer as
to how the challenge is maintainable at the intermediary stage. He has
contended that since the issue of legality and validity of the domestic
enquiry has been finally adjudicated, the challenge would be maintainable.
5. I am of the opinion that such challenge to the inter mediate orders in
the proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator cannot be entertained and
in fact such practice has been deprecated by the Apex Court in National
Council for Cement & Building Material Vs. State of Haryana (1996) 3
SCC 206. I have also recently in Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare
Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court-IX MANU/DE/1034/2010 held
that challenge in such a situation is not maintainable. If the final award is
in favour of the petitioner employer, the occasion/need for the petitioner
employer to challenge the same would not arise.
6. The counsel for the petitioner employer at this stage contends that
the notice of the petition was issued only after he had satisfied this Court
on the said aspect. However the order issuing notice is silent in this
regard. The counsel for the petitioner employer today is unable to show as
to how the challenge is maintainable at this stage. Moreover merely
because notice of a petition is issued, cannot ensure success thereof.
7. The counsel for the petitioner employer now states that he be
permitted to file before this Court a copy of the subsequent proceedings
before the Industrial Adjudicator as well as the report of the Inquiry
Officer and the matter be adjourned. No such adjournment can be granted
to keep the petition alive when the counsel is unable to satisfy the very
maintainability thereof.
8. The petition is therefore dismissed as not maintainable with liberty
to the petitioner employer to challenge the order dated 10 th August, 2006 if
remains aggrieved from the final award, including on the same grounds as
taken in this petition.
9. No litigation costs having been paid till now, the petitioner employer
to pay costs of these proceedings of `10,000/- to the respondent workman.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 02, 2011
bs
