Siel Ltd. vs The Lt. Governor & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4152 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                W.P. (C) 199/1985 & CMs 199/85, 4333/91, 5014/95,
                             7285/97, 11272/01

                                                         Reserved on: August 01, 2011
                                                         Decision on: August 26, 2011

        SIEL LTD.                                                       ..... Petitioner
                                    Through:      Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate.

                           versus


        THE LT. GOVERNOR & ORS.                                        ..... Respondents
                       Through:                   None for LRs of R-4/workman.


        CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

        1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be              No
            allowed to see the judgment?                         Yes
        2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                Yes
        3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?

                                    JUDGMENT

26.08.2011

1. Shriram Foods and Fertilizer Industries, formerly known as M/s. DCM Chemical Works, a unit of M/s. DCM Ltd. (formerly known as Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.), filed this writ petition challenging the orders dated 30th January 1984, 14th March 1984, 28th March 1984, 31st March 1984 and 2nd December 1983 passed by the Labour Court-I, in ID No. 81 of 1971 and the Award dated 2nd April 1984. The Petitioner has since been substituted by SIEL Ltd.

2. This Court has heard Ms. Raavi Birbal, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, and having perused the impugned order and the record.

3. The dispute referred to the Labour Court in ID No. 81 of 1971 was the legality of the dismissal of the workman, Mr. Ved Prakash Gupta [since deceased and substituted by his legal representatives (LRs)] and the relief to which he was entitled. The workman filed a

statement of claim stating that he was employed by the management of M/s DCM Chemical Works on 11th June 1954 drawing a salary of Rs. 305 per month and was instrumental in forming a union in the name and style of Rashtriya Chemical Karamchari Sangh, Delhi. He had raised various demands for better service conditions of the employees. In retaliation, the management issued a charge-sheet against the workman on 9th May 1968. Pursuant to an enquiry, the workman was found guilty and dismissed from service on 9th September 1968. The resultant industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court in I.D. No. 81 of 1971.

4. The management filed its written statement on 20th January 1972. After completion of pleadings issues were framed on 13th March 1972. The workman's evidence was recorded on 18th April 1972. The management cross-examined the workman's witnesses up to 28th May 1973. The workman's evidence was then closed. The first management witness was examined on 19th July 1973 and cross-examined on 7th September 1973. The other four management witnesses were examined up to 28th September 1975 and the management evidence was closed on 23rd October 1975. The case was listed for final arguments. At that stage on 21st January 1976 the Labour Court took up for consideration the preliminary issue of fairness of the inquiry. After eight years the said issue was decided on 2nd December 1983 against the management. The said order is one among the many has been challenged by the management in this petition.

5. A perusal of the order dated 2nd December 1983 shows that the management was not able to substantiate its contention that the Inquiry Officer ('IO') had complied with the principles of natural justice. The statement made by the workman in his affidavit that he had not received any reply to his request made by a letter dated 1st June 1968 to the IO for a list of witnesses and copy of documents, was not rebutted. In the cross-examination, the management's witness admitted to receiving this letter but did not give any reason as to why the letter was not replied to. Even if the said letter was written by the workman in Urdu, the management could have gotten it translated from somewhere. Even in the cross-examination, the IO gave evasive replies. This led the Labour Court to conclude that the enquiry had not been conducted in a fair manner. Further, the Labour Court found that in the inquiry proceedings one of the management witnesses, Mr. R.K. Jain was examined on 20th May 1968, cross-examined by the workman and finally the

evidence was closed. However, at the adjourned hearing of 30th May 1968, the same witness was examined again by the IO. This examination amounted to establishing the case of the management which led the Labour Court to conclude that the very purpose of an impartial enquiry had been defeated.

6. This Court is not persuaded to hold that the order dated 2nd December 1983 of the Labour Court suffers from any legal infirmity. It is based on the evidence led before the Labour Court and there is no ground made out for any interference. The reliance placed by Ms. Birbal on the decisions in The Lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workmen AIR 1961 SC 860 and State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh 1977 (2) SCC 491 is misplaced. Even if the strict rules of evidence do not apply some basic rules of fairness would have to be adhered to. That was clearly lacking in the inquiry, as rightly held by the Labour Court.

7. With the enquiry being held to be unfair and invalid, it was incumbent on the management to lead evidence before the Labour Court to show that there was misconduct on the part of the workman. After the issue of fairness of the enquiry was decided against it, and more than twelve years after the filing of its written statement, the management filed a slew of applications. Contending that it had till then led evidence only on the issue of the fairness of the enquiry, it filed an application praying that the Labour Court should fix the case for filing of documents and evidence of the parties on the second issue, i.e., the legality of the dismissal of the workman. By the order dated 30th January 1984, the Labour Court dismissed the said application. The said order has also been challenged in the present petition.

8. The management contended, and this submission was reiterated in this Court, that it had in para 13 of its written statement reserved its right to add, to alter and/or to modify the written statement and to lead such oral and/or documentary evidence as may be deemed necessary. This reserving of the right by the management did not by itself mean that it had actually sought and had been granted permission to adduce evidence. Consequently, the Labour Court concluded that in the absence of any specific plea in the written statement, the management could not be allowed to adduce further evidence after the decision on the preliminary issue being held against the management.

9. The important fact noted by the Labour Court was that while the workman had been dismissed in 1968, the management's written statement was filed in 1972, and a preliminary issue was framed in 1976, yet no specific application was moved for leading further evidence. Such an application was in fact moved only on 20th December 1983. The only reason for this delay given by Ms. Raavi Birbal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, is that the management had to await the decision on the preliminary issue before seeking to adduce the evidence. This argument is entirely unconvincing and is rejected as such. The management obviously knew what its case was and had led evidence by this time to press its case. It need not have waited till the decision on the preliminary issue. In any event, even for the preliminary issue it had examined a large number of documents and five witnesses.

10. Ms. Birbal relied on the decisions in Workmen of the Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. v. Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. 1965 (11) FLR 112; Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen AIR 1963 SC 295; Workmen of Fire Stone Co. of India v. Management of Fire Stone Co. of India AIR 1973 SC 1227; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh AIR 1972 SC 1031; Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. PP Mundhe 1975 Lab I C 1441 and Prem Nath Motors Workshop Pvt. Ltd. v. PO, Industrial Tribunal 1971 (1) LLJ 167 and submitted that after the preliminary issue was decided against the management it was open to the management to lead evidence on the aspect of misconduct and that this opportunity could not be denied to it.

11. The above submission is without merit. A perusal of the record shows that the entire process of examining witnesses was spread over four years. Five management witnesses were examined and cross-examined and the evidence of the management was closed on 23rd October 1975. It can hardly be said that the management did not have sufficient opportunity to lead evidence. It chose to wait for over eight years to seek to lead further evidence. This was clearly an abuse of the process of law. It would have further delayed the conclusion of the trial which had begun some time in 1971. No comparison can be drawn with the facts of any of the cases cited by learned counsel for the management. The Labour Court rightly rejected the said application. No grounds are made out for interference with the order dated 30th January 1984.

12. The next order that is challenged is the one dated 14th March 1984 by which the Labour Court dismissed an application by the management seeking permission to lead evidence on the question of relief. The Labour Court noticed that the application had been filed after the dismissal of the earlier application for leading evidence on 30th January 1984. In the present application, neither did the management give details as to how the past record of the workman was not good, nor was any proof given regarding the employment of the workman. Again, no such plea was taken in the written statement. Further, no plea was taken in the written statement about the gainful employment of the workman. In the circumstances, this application was also rejected by the Labour Court.

13. The next order challenged is the one dated 28th March 1984 by the Labour Court dismissing the management's application for amendment of the written statement. The management sought to add para 10A to the written statement stating that the past record of the workman was very bad. This plea had already been rejected by the Labour Court in its order dated 14th March 1984. The management then sought to add para 10B to plead that the workman was doing business after his dismissal. This again was covered by the earlier orders of the Labour Court.

14. Ms. Birbal referred to the decisions in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon AIR 1969 SC 1267; Management of Monghyr Factory ITC Ltd. v. PO, Labour Court 1978 LIC 1256 and Haridas Ailds Thadani v. Godrej Rustom Kermani AIR 1983 SC 319, and submitted that the Labour Court ought to have taken a liberal view of the request of the management to amend its written statement. However, this submission does not impress this Court. The fact that the application was filed more than twelve years after the filing of the written statement was itself a sufficient ground for dismissal. Further, it would have the inevitable effect of delaying the trial which had begun twelve years earlier in 1971. The orders dated 14th and 28th March 1984 of the Labour Court also do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever.

15. The last order dated 31st March 1984 passed by the Labour Court rejecting an application filed by the management for adjournment of the case on account of the inconvenience of the counsel for the management. The impugned order shows that the

learned counsel for the workman had submitted his arguments on 13th December 1983 and the case was fixed for final arguments of the management on 20th December 1983. On that date, an application was moved which was dismissed by an order dated 30th January 1984 and the case was reserved for award. On 6th February 1984 another application was filed and the case was fixed for final arguments on 15th February 1984. On that date also another request was made and the case was again adjourned to 25th February 1984. Yet another adjournment was requested by the management and the case was adjourned to 1st March 1984. On that date also another adjournment was sought and the case was fixed for arguments on 6th March 1984. An application was filed on that date which was dismissed on 14th March 1984 and the case was again adjourned to 16th March 1984. On the said date a request for adjournment was made and the case was listed for 24th March 1984 on which date, another application was filed which was dismissed and the case was posted for 31st March 1984. In the above circumstances, the request for adjournment was refused.

16. It does appear that the management was abusing the process of law by filing repeated applications seeking adjournments. In the circumstances, the rejection of the said application moved for adjourning the case by the management was justified.

17. Turning to the impugned Award dated 2nd April 1984, the record shows that the workman placed on record the documents Ex. WW2/1 to WW-2/35 and W-2/36 to WW- 2/52. The workman was cross-examined and he stood firm. The stand of the workman was supported by the affidavit of Sumer Chand Jain, a witness for the workman. As regards the charge of insubordination, again, the evidence adduced by the management did not support its case. Consequently, the reference was answered in favour of the workman and he was directed to be reinstated with full back wages.

18. This Court is again unable to find any legal infirmity in the impugned Award of the Labour Court which is entirely based on an appreciation of the evidence led before it.

19. For all of the aforementioned reasons, there is no ground made out for interference with any of the impugned orders and the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court. It is time to draw the curtain on a long tortuous course of litigation which began forty-three

years ago with the dismissal of the workman in September 1968. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 30,000/- which will be paid by the Petitioner to the LRs of Respondent No. 4 workman within a period of four weeks from today. The interim order is vacated. All pending applications are disposed of.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

AUGUST 26, 2011 akg