Delhi High Court
Nempal Singh vs M/S Vintron Industries Ltd on 12 May, 2011
Author: Rekha Sharma
UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP (C) No.3187/2011
Date of Decision: May 12, 2011
NEMPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
through Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate
versus
M/S VINTRON INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Respondent
through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the 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 in the 'Digest'? No
REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court
dated September 15, 2010, holding that the inquiry conducted by
the respondent/Management resulting in the termination of his
service was neither illegal nor improper. The petitioner is also
aggrieved by the subsequent order of the Labour Court dated
December 01, 2010, further holding that due to serious charges of
insubordination and assault, he was not entitled to reinstatement or
to any other relief.
WP (C) No.3187/2011 Page 1
The learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly found fault
with the order dated September 15, 2010. It is alleged that in the
proceedings before the Enquiry Officer held on August 12, 1997,
the petitioner/workman wanted to be represented through a
representative of his trade union, but not only was his
request declined but he was also asked to leave the inquiry
proceedings. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner in his
cross-examination before the Labour Court admitted that he signed
the proceedings dated August 12, 1997. It is also not disputed that
after August 12, 1997, the petitioner except addressing
communications dated September 08, 1997 & September 27, 1997
to the Management, made no effort to find out the next date before
the Enquiry Officer. In so far as the communication dated
September 08, 1997 is concerned, he thereby asked the
Management to inform him about the next date, and through the
communication dated September 27, 1997, he informed the
Management that he had changed his address from Faridabad to
Gautambudh Nagar.
It may be noted that the Enquiry Officer had fixed the next
date of inquiry as August 26, 1997 and had also informed the
petitioner about the same through a registered communication
Ext.WW1/4 at his address at Faridabad.
WP (C) No.3187/2011 Page 2
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of
the view that the writ-petition has no merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
As noticed above, it is not in dispute that the petitioner
appeared before the Enquiry Officer on August 12, 1997. Assuming,
as alleged by the petitioner, that on the said date, he was asked to
leave the inquiry proceedings, should he not have made efforts to
find out the next date of hearing? All that he did was to write letters
dated September 08, 1997 and September 27, 1997 and even those
letters he addressed not to the Enquiry Officer but to the
Management. I fail to understand, why the petitioner chose to write
to the Management when it was the Enquiry Officer who was seized
of the matter. If he wanted to know about the next date of hearing,
he should have either made inquiry from the office of the Enquiry
Officer or should have written directly to him. In any case, as per
his own admission, he had signed on the proceedings of
August 12, 1997 which gives rise to the presumption that he knew
about the next date of hearing, and yet, chose not to appear before
the Enquiry Officer. Nevertheless, the Enquiry Officer did inform
him about the next date which was August 26, 1997 through a
registered communication and if that communication remained
undelivered to him, it was because he never informed the Enquiry
Officer about the change in his address, and even to the
Management, he had informed as late as on September 27, 1997.
WP (C) No.3187/2011 Page 3
If, in these circumstances, he was proceeded ex parte by the
Enquiry Officer and resultantly, no relief has been granted to him,
he has only to blame himself.
There is no merit in the writ-petition. The same is dismissed.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
MAY 12, 2011
ka
WP (C) No.3187/2011 Page 4
