Delhi High Court
Smt. Kamlesh Purohit vs M/S Jay Pee Exports Ltd. on 6 May, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 6th May, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 3028/2011
% SMT. KAMLESH PUROHIT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Adv.
Versus
M/S JAY PEE EXPORTS LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers 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 No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the award dated 25th September, 2009 of the
Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:
"Whether the services of Smt. Kamlesh Purohit have
been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management, and if so, to what relief is she entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. The Industrial Adjudicator, first vide order dated 24 th November,
1998 also impugned in this petition, held that the inquiry conducted by
the respondent employer preceding the termination of the petitioner
workman was fair and proper. Thereafter vide award dated 25 th
September, 2009 it was held that the punishment meted out to the
petitioner workman was not disproportionate to the misconduct of which
the petitioner had been found guilty.
3. It has as such been inquired from the counsel for the petitioner
workman as to why the long delay of 11 years happened between the
findings as to the validity of the inquiry and the award inasmuch as the
only question to be gone into after the order dated 24 th November, 1998
was to the proportionality of the punishment.
4. The counsel for the petitioner workman has fairly stated that he has
not inspected the proceedings sheet so as to give the reasons for delay but
admits the delay to be unusual.
5. This writ petition has been preferred after one and a half years of
the award against the petitioner workman. The petitioner workman being
out of service, was expected to act diligently. The writ petition explains
the delay for the reason of poverty and old age of the petitioner workman.
6. However, it is borne out from the paper book that the petitioner
workman is a Union Leader and has been the General Secretary of the
Delhi Government Export Employees Union. Thus the reasons attributed
for delay cannot be accepted. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on
grounds of laches alone.
7. Be that as it may, the award dated 25 th September, 2009 and the
order dated 24th November, 1998 have also been examined on merits to
find out whether any case for judicial interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is made out.
8. The petitioner workman was charged with acts of quarrelsome,
violent, un-social and uncivilized attitude and use of indecent language,
threats, provocation of colleagues, attack and breach of discipline.
9. The Industrial Adjudicator in the order dated 24th November, 1998
has recorded that Sh. V.K. Gupta retired Assistant Labour Commissioner
was appointed as the Inquiry Officer; that he examined eight witnesses on
behalf of the respondent employer; all the said witnesses were cross-
examined by the representative of the petitioner workman; thereafter the
petitioner workman examined two witnesses; that the Inquiry Officer had
found the charges to have been established against the petitioner workman.
10. The counsel for the petitioner workman has drawn attention to
paragraph 10 of the order dated 24th November, 1998 as to the validity of
the inquiry. The Industrial Adjudicator has therein observed that it is
settled law that the Industrial Adjudicator is not to act as Appellate
Authority over the report of inquiry and has not to assess the evidence
adduced in the inquiry and to find out whether conclusion other than that
reached by the Inquiry Officer can be arrived at. It was further observed
that the Industrial Adjudicator is to only see whether the inquiry has been
conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, is not
perverse and is not based on no evidence at all.
11. The counsel for the petitioner workman has invited attention to
concurring but separate opinion of Justice S.B. Sinha in Cellular Operator
Association of India Vs. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 899 laying down
that having regard to Section 11A of the I.D. Act, the jurisdiction of the
Industrial Adjudicator is akin to the appellate power. He has also invited
attention to Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1984
SC 1805 also observing that in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by
Section 11A of the I.D. Act, reappraisal of evidence led in domestic
enquiry is permissible to satisfy itself whether the evidence led by the
employer established misconduct against the workman.
12. The counsel for the petitioner workman has fairly admitted that the
view of law taken by the Industrial Adjudicator in the order dated 24 th
November, 1998 is also not unknown and there are judgments supporting
the same also. He has further contended that there are conflicting
judgments as to the scope of powers under Section 11A of the I.D. Act.
13. However, the mater having remained pending for long, it is not
deemed expedient to consider the matter for remand on the said ground
and the report of the Inquiry Officer, the evidence recorded etc. has been
looked into. Even if appellate powers were to be exercised, no case for
interference is made out. The witnesses have deposed of the acts with
which the petitioner was charged and which deposition could not be
shaken in cross-examination.
14. Therefore it is not deemed expedient to in view of the conflict of
judgments cited, entertain this writ petition.
15. As far as the proportionality is concerned, no error is found in the
award, considering the charge of which the petitioner workman was found
guilty.
16. Accordingly, no merit is found in the writ petition; the same is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MAY 06, 2011
bs
