Vijay Mohan vs The Presiding Officer & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4080 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 11th July, 2012

+                                W.P.(C) 447/1998

       VIJAY MOHAN                                            ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     None.

                          Versus
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR.       ..... Respondents
                  Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                                 JUDGMENT

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the award dated 20.05.1997 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:

"Whether the dismissal of Shri Vijay Mohan is legal / justified if not, what directions are necessary in this behalf?"

and though holding the dismissal of the petitioner to be illegal, awarding compensation of `25,000/- only, to the petitioner. The petitioner in this petition impugns the award insofar as it denies the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service to the petitioner. Notice of the petition was issued after several listings. Pleadings have been completed and Rule was issued on 11.09.2000. It seems that the awarded compensation of `25,000/- also was not paid to the petitioner. The petitioner filed CM No.5725/2006 in this petition for direction to the

respondent for payment without prejudice of the said amount. Vide order dated 23.01.2008, the said amount was directed to be paid. Though attempt for amicable settlement were made by the Continuous Lok Adalat but remained unsuccessful. The petitioner thereafter stopped appearing, though in the interest of justice, the petition was adjourned from time to time. On 19.04.2011, the counsel for the petitioner informed that the petitioner had expired and the counsel was not receiving any instructions. However, thereafter also none has been appearing for either of the parties on 23.08.2011, 15.12.2011, 02.01.2012, 20.03.2012 & 02.07.2012. No application for substitution of legal representatives of the petitioner has also been filed. Today also none appears for either of the parties. Though in view of the aforesaid, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution / as abated but it is deemed appropriate to observe that the Industrial Adjudicator has found / held:

(i) that though departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for misappropriation of goods worth `10,364.98 but the services of the petitioner were terminated even prior to the conclusion of the said departmental proceedings and for which reason the termination is bad;

(ii) however, the relief of reinstatement and back wages has been denied to the petitioner for the reason of the claim having been raised for the first time on 01.09.1984 after termination on 01.06.1976 i.e. after nearly eight years. It is also noticed that the petitioner himself in the claim petition has stated that owing to the said delay, he was ready to forgo some percentage of the back wages;

(iii) that the petitioner despite opportunities had failed to adduce evidence before the Industrial Adjudicator and vide order in an earlier writ petition filed by him had only been permitted to place documents;

(iv) owing to the allegations of misappropriation which were ultimately held proved, the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement;

(v) that the petitioner has not appeared in the witness box to depose whether he was employed elsewhere in the interregnum;

(vi) that the pay scale of the petitioner was `110-180 though the petitioner had not even deposed his last drawn pay;

(vii) that the petitioner then was about 55 years of age and had only about three years of service left.

Considering all these facts, lump sum compensation of `25,000/- was awarded.

2. I am of the opinion that the Industrial Adjudicator has given cogent reasons for the relief granted and which do not call for any interference.

3. The petition is therefore dismissed.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 11, 2012 'gsr'