Delhi High Court

Lrs Institute Of Tuberculosis And ... vs Shri Babu Lal on 20 August, 2015

Author: Sunita Gupta

$~
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                    Date of Decision: 20th August, 2015

+       W.P.(C) 3160/2012

        LRS INSTITUTE OF TUBERCULOSIS & ALLIED DISEASES
                                              ..... Petitioner

                         Through:     Mr.Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate


                         versus

        SHRI BABU LAL                                  ..... Respondent
                         Through:     Mr.Atul T.N., Advocate


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA


                                  JUDGMENT

: SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 20.08.2011 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma, Delhi in ID No. 58/10 vide which the termination of the respondent herein was held to be illegal and he was held entitled for reinstatement of service and 50% of backwages alongwith compensation for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The backwages were ordered to be paid within 30 days from the date of publication of the award

failing which, workman was entitled for interest at simple rate of 6% from the date of award till realisation.

2. The respondent was engaged in the petitioner's institute as a kitchen staff on daily wages in the year 1986. Thereafter, he was appointed as a regular employee of the institute on 01.01.1987 as a kitchen staff. On 27.01.1994 the institute served the respondent with a memorandum/chargesheet for stealing certain food articles from the kitchen concealed in a bag which were recovered from his bag in the presence of Nursing Superintendent. Pursuant to the chargesheet issued to the respondent, enquiry proceedings were initiated wherein he admitted his guilt. Based on the report of the enquiry officer, a show cause notice dated 04.10.1994 was issued to the respondent to which he submitted a reply. A penalty of reduction of lower stage of pay of Rs.835/- from his present stage of pay of Rs. 859/- for a period of two years was imposed and it was also made clear that the respondent would not earn any increment of pay during this period. It is the case of the petitioner that while undergoing this departmental penalty, the respondent committed another act of misconduct on 13.05.1995 when special food was to be prepared for patients' dinner in the second shift. He was posted for making rotis but he refused to do his assigned work by the Steward namely Sh.Vinay Kumar Chaturvedi and misbehaved with him. The respondent stated that he would distribute food. A written complaint dated 13.05.1995 was made by Sh.Vinay Kumar Chaturvedi to the director of the petitioner. Another complaint was made by him on 16.05.1995 that he was threatened to withdraw the complaint. Based upon the complaint, a memorandum dated 23.05.1995 was issued to the respondent to explain his conduct and to state as to why disciplinary action

should not be taken against him. The respondent replied to the memorandum on 03.07.1995 wherein he denied the allegations. Joint enquiry was constituted into the charges levelled against respondent and Shri.I.L.Kalra, Advocate was appointed as the enquiry officer. The respondent was informed vide letter dated 11.09.1995 regarding the date of enquiry proceedings i.e., 16.09.1995, however, neither the respondent appeared on that date nor registered AD was received back by the enquiry officer. Under the circumstances, another date i.e., 28.09.1995 was fixed by the enquiry officer for conducting enquiry proceedings and intimation was sent to the respondent. On 28.09.1995 the respondent workman appeared in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer read out and explained the memorandum dated 23.05.1995. The respondent admitted his guilt which was duly recorded by the enquiry officer and the respondent also signed the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer informed the respondent that the management may take action against him for the said misconduct on which the respondent stated that he had been working with the petitioner management since 1987 and his case may be considered sympathetically. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report dated 31.10.1995 based upon the admission made during the course of enquiry by the respondent. After considering the chargesheet, enquiry report and other documents, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the respondent on 13.05.1996 as to why the penalty of termination of services be not imposed upon him. The respondent replied to the show cause notice vide reply dated 04.06.1996 and denied that he had any altercation with his senior Sh.Vinay Kumar Chaturvedi on 13.05.1995. He took the plea that he was not given any opportunity of hearing and his signatures were taken on blank papers to

which he was not bound as he was not an educated man. He was not handed over the copy of the enquiry proceedings. He further stated that he has small children and his case be considered sympathetically. After considering the representation dated 04.06.1996 of the respondent, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of termination of the respondent. In the meanwhile, respondent filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner and in reply filed by the petitioner, it was stated that the respondent was dismissed vide order dated 11.06.1996. The respondent served a legal notice through his advocate on 30.10.1996 which was duly replied by the petitioner. The respondent raised an industrial dispute and on failure of conciliation proceedings, the appropriate government vide order dated 22.01.1998 referred the dispute to the Labour Court with the following terms of reference;

"Whether the services of Shri Babu Lal have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect."

3. Pursuant to the reference, the respondent filed his statement of claim wherein he did not dispute that he participated in the enquiry proceedings on 28.09.1995. The petitioner filed reply to the statement of claim. On 17.10.2000, the Labour Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the Management is an industry within the definition of Section 2(j) of ID Act;

2. In terms of reference?"

4. On 08.08.2007 an additional issue was framed regarding enquiry:

"1A. Whether the enquiry conducted by the Management against the Workman is fair, proper, valid and in accordance with the principles of natural justice."

5. Thereafter, the workman examined himself as WW/1. On behalf of

petitioner two witnesses were examined viz. Shri G.V.Raju (MW/1) and

Shri Vinay Kumar Chaturvedi (MW/2). The Labour Court decided both the

issues against the petitioner and in favour of the workman and held that the

petitioner was an industry and that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated as

principles of natural justice were not complied with. The Labour Court

further held that since the workman had attained the age of retirement, the

question of his reinstatement in service did not arise, however, he was held

entitled for 50% of backwages i.e., last drawn from the date of termination

of his service till the date of his retirement alongwith compensation for a

sum of Rs.10,000/-. This award has been challenged by the petitioner by

filing this writ petition.

6. Assailing the findings of the learned Labour Court, learned counsel

for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the chargesheet issued to the

respondent, he admitted his guilt and tendered apology. Even during enquiry

proceedings, he admitted the charge. Thereafter he was issued a show cause

notice wherein also he admitted his guilt. That being so, the findings of the

Labour Court that the respondent should have been given more opportunity

was uncalled for. At every forum he admitted his guilt and there is no

allegation of any coercion or threat. Admission is the best piece of evidence

against the maker thereof as held in Union of India & Ors. vs. Chander

Singh Manu/DE/1771/2002; Channabasappa Basappa Happali vs. State of

Mysore (1971) 1 SCC 1 and Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Shyam Lal

(2004) 8 SCC 88. Moreover, by placing reliance on Divyash Pandit vs.

NCCBM 2007 (15) SCC 787 it was urged that in case the Labour Court was

of the view that such admission alone cannot form basis of imposing the

penalty then the petitioner should have been allowed to lead additional

evidence. Furthermore, the plea of the respondent that his signatures were

obtained by the enquiry officer on blank papers is an afterthought, as such, a

plea was taken after seven months when he made representation. Moreover,

in order to substantiate his case, he could have summoned the doctor or the

other employees i.e., Raj Singh and Lal Singh but that was not done. Under

the circumstances, the impugned award is liable to be set aside and the order

passed by the disciplinary authority terminating the respondent be

confirmed. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner did

not press on issue no.1 i.e., whether the management is an industry within

the definition of Section 2(j) of ID Act.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there

was no unequivocal admission on the part of the respondent. At every forum

he had taken the plea that on that day it was not his duty to prepare rotis and

he was to distribute food. When he was assigned the duties to prepare rotis,

he explained his difficulty by stating that he was unwell and was finding it

difficult to face the flames. Moreover, there was no admission that he

committed any misconduct. That being so, the enquiry officer should not

have decided the enquiry proceedings only on the basis of so-called

admission of the respondent. Moreover, the findings of the Labour Court

that the enquiry proceedings were in violation of natural justice does not call

for interference. Reliance was placed on Collector Singh vs. L.M.L. Ltd.,

Kanpur (2015) 2 SCC 410.. Furthermore, now it does not lie in the mouth of

the petitioner to allege that the petitioner should have been granted

opportunity to lead additional evidence as the petitioner gave a statement on

19.08.2011 before the Labour Court that it does not want to lead further

evidence. As such, the judgment relied upon by him does not help him.

Further, reliance was placed on M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. The

Employees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (1979) 2 SCC 80;

Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2015) 4 SCC 458; Bhuvnesh

Kumar Dwivedi vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. (2014) 11 SCC 85 for

submitting that the High Court can interfere in the order of the Court and

Tribunal below only when it is convinced that the Labour Court has made

patent mistakes in admitting evidence illegally or have made grave errors in

law in coming to the conclusion on facts which in the instant case is lacking,

as such, appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. It is not in dispute that a memorandum dated 23.05.1995 was issued to

the respondent stating therein that on 13.05.1995 he was posted for making

rotis but he refused to do the assigned work and misbehaved with Shri

Chaturvedi saying that he will distribute food and he did not do his duty and

a substitute had to be provided in his place. Photocopy of the complaint

made by Sh.Vinay Kumar Chaturvedi dated 13.05.1995 was annexed with

the memorandum. A reply dated 03.07.1995 was sent by the respondent

wherein he alleged that on 13.05.1995 his duty was to distribute food.

ShriVinay Kumar Chaturvedi asked him not to distribute the food and to

prepare Chapatis. He informed him that he was not feeling well and was

finding it difficult to go near the flames so he be allowed to distribute the

food but he did not pay heed to him and threatened to make a complaint to

the higher authorities. He further went on stating that the complaint has been

made by Shri Chaturvedi out of revenge as prior to this incident on

17.04.1995 he had made a complaint about the behaviour of Shri Chaturvedi

but no reply was received. He went on stating that since he was not feeling

well on that day, therefore, he could not prepare Chapatis but this act was

not intentional and in case there was any hardship then he apologises for the

same. He further stated that Shri Chaturvedi did not allow him to do his

duty. Not feeling satisfied with this response, a domestic enquiry was

conducted by Shri I.L.Kalra, Advocate and perusal of the proceedings dated

28.09.1995 goes to show that the contents of the chargesheet were read over

to the respondent wherein he admitted the charge and the workman stated

that he had been working in the institute since 1987, as such, his case be

considered sympathetically. The enquiry officer felt that since the workman

had admitted to the charge, therefore, there was no need to record evidence

and then submitted his report whereupon a show cause notice was issued to

him as to why the proposed punishment of termination of his services be not

confirmed. The respondent submitted a reply wherein he reiterated his

earlier stand that he never misbehaved with Shri Vinay Kumr Chaturvedi by

stating that he was senior. He, however, stated that he was unwell despite

the fact that his duty was to distribute food on that day, he prepared

Chapatis. He also stated that he was not granted any opportunity of hearing

and his signatures were obtained on blank papers. The enquiry officer did

not provide him carbon copy of the enquiry proceedings. He was not

afforded full opportunity of defending himself. It is settled law as held in

Chander Singh (supra), Shyam Lal (supra) and Channabasappa Basappa

Happali (supra) that admission is the best piece of evidence against the

maker thereof and as per the provisions contained in Section 58 of the

Evidence Act, a fact admitted need not be proved, however, the admission

should be unequivocal. In the instant case, there was no unequivocal

admission of the respondent as a perusal of the reply given by the

respondent in response to the memorandum as well as show cause notice

goes to show that it is the case of the respondent that on the fateful day his

duty was to distribute food and not to prepare Chapatis. When Shri Vinay

Kumar Chaturvedi asked him to prepare Chapatis, he expressed his inability

being unwell and finding it difficult to go in front of flames. He also denied

that he misbehaved with the complainant. So far as enquiry officer is

concerned, statement of respondent was not recorded in order to ascertain as

to what was the stand taken by him before the enquiry officer. Under the

circumstances, it cannot be said that there was unequivocal admission by the

respondent. In Collector Singh (supra), the workman was working as a semi

skilled workman. He was served with a chargesheet stating that on the

relevant date he threw jute/cotton waste balls hitting the face of Foreman in

the said company and on objecting to the same, the workman abused him

with filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences.

Subsequently, the workman submitted an apology letter stating that he had

thrown piece of Jute/cotton waste balls which fell on Foreman by mistake

and he sought pardon for the same. A departmental enquiry was conducted.

The enquiry officer submitted his report that the workman was guilty of

misconduct and on the basis of enquiry report, the appellant workman was

dismissed from the services of the company. The workman raised an

industrial dispute. The Labour Court held the termination of services of the

appellant to be justified. The writ petition before the High Court was

dismissed. The appellant preferred Special Leave Petition before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the

Labour Court and the High Court did not properly appreciate the tenor of

apology letter and the courts below proceeded on the premise that in his

apology letter the appellant had admitted the incident. It was observed that

from the contents of the apology letter it is discerned that the appellant made

admissions only with respect to throwing of Jute/cotton waste balls by

mistake and such a mistake would not be repeated in future and that he be

pardoned for the same. The letter no way stated that the appellant was

involved in the incident of hurling abuses and using filthy language against

his superior officers. In essence, even the incident of throwing of jute/cotton

waste balls at the Foreman has been stated as a mistake. Use of abusive

language is not established by the apology letter. Mere act of throwing of

jute/cotton waste balls may not by itself lead to imposing punishment of

dismissal from service, as such, it was observed that it was difficult to accept

such excessive reliance on the apology letter by the enquiry officer

appointed for departmental enquiry as well as by the courts below for

justifying the punishment of dismissal from service. In the instant case also,

in his complaint dated 13.05.1995 the complainant had alleged about refusal

on the part of the respondent to prepare Chapatis and using abusive

language against him. He made another complaint stating that he was

threatened to withdraw the complaint or else he will face dire consequences.

However, in the reply there is no admission on the part of the respondent

regarding misbehaviour with the complainant. Moreover, heavy reliance has

been placed on the earlier departmental proceedings initiated against the

respondent and copies of the same has been placed on record. A perusal of

the same goes to show that the same enquiry officer Shri I.L.Kalra,

Advocate had conducted the earlier enquiry and at that time also it was

alleged that the respondent had admitted his guilt but at that time a detailed

statement of the respondent was recorded by the enquiry officer which has

not been done in the instant case. After scrutinising the evidence led by the

parties, the learned Labour Court observed that no official witness was

examined by the management or the document in support of the charges.

The enquiry officer was appointed without consent of the workman. Even no

prior intimation was given to the workman. There is no reference of any

presenting officer being present when the proceedings were conducted. The

enquiry officer did not explain the proceedings as well as the enquiry report

to the workman. The enquiry officer was supposed to explain the charges to

the workman and copy of the charges were to be supplied to him. The

statement of the workman was to be recorded for accepting his plea of guilt.

It was further observed that the enquiry officer acted as the presenting

officer on behalf of the management and it is not clear as to why he did not

record the statement of the workman or adjourn the matter for some other

day to give an opportunity to give a second thought after considering the

plea of guilt made by workman. By placing reliance on Central Bank of

India vs Karunamoy Banerjee AIR 1968 SC 266 it was held that the rules

of natural justice requires that the workman must be given reasonable

opportunity to cross-examine the witness and also to adduce any other

evidence if he may choose. In the complaint names of many other

employees were given who were present at the time of incident but except

for Shri.G.V.Raju and Shri Vinay Kumar Chaturvedi no other employee was

examined. Even Shri G.V.Raju in his cross-examination stated that he could

not say whether Babu Lal was chargesheeted on the complaint of Shri Vinay

Kumar Chaturvedi or Babu Lal made a complaint against Shri Vinay Kumar

Chaturvedi prior to making his complaint against the workman or enquiry

was conducted against the workman in his presence. It was further observed

that the enquiry officer did not give any opportunity to the workman to

explain his apology nor the apology as alleged was recorded in verbatim or

in any other form of statement. As such, the enquiry conducted against the

workman was against the principles of natural justice and the enquiry report

stands vitiated.

9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the

Labour Court was of the view that the workman should not have been held

guilty on the basis of an admission then management should have been

given an opportunity to lead evidence as held in Divyash Pandit (supra).

The submission is without merit as perusal of ordersheet dated 19.08.2011

before the Labour Court reveals that the AR of the petitioner gave a

statement that he does not want to lead further evidence. In Divyash Pandit

(supra) it was held that once the Labour Court comes to a conclusion that the

enquiry conducted by the management is perverse in the eye of law, it has

power to allow management to lead additional evidence to establish charges

against workman concerned. Such an opportunity was afforded by the

Labour Court and two witnesses were examined by the management. If the

management did not want to lead any further evidence, the Labour Court

could not compel the management to lead further evidence. Therefore,

Divyash Pandit (supra) does not help the petitioner. At this stage, it does not

lie in the mouth of the petitioner to allege that more opportunity should have

been given to the petitioner to lead evidence. Under the circumstances, the

findings of the Labour Court does not call for interference.

10. Moreover, while dealing with the scope of interference by the High

Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in New Age

Advertising & Printers vs. Rajinder Kumar 2015 SCC Online Del 6678 the

Court held as under:-

"11. The challenge is also on the ground that workman has himself resigned from job after submitting his apology for his conduct. No such contention was raised before the tribunal. Order of tribunal is based on evidences produced before it. In the Calcutta Port Shramik Union vs. Calcutta River Transport Association 1988 Supp SCC 768 relied upon by the respondent, the Supreme Court has clearly held in para 10 that the court are refrained from interfering with an award on flimsy grounds. Para 10 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:

"10. The object of enacting the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and of making provision therein to refer disputes to tribunals for settlement is to bring about industrial peace. Whenever a reference is made by a Government to an Industrial Tribunal it has to be presumed ordinarily that there is a genuine industrial dispute between the parties which requires to be resolved by adjudication. In all such cases an attempt should be made by courts exercising powers of judicial review to sustain as far as possible the awards made by industrial tribunals instead of picking holes here and there in the awards on trivial points and ultimately frustrating the entire adjudication process before the tribunals by striking down awards on hypertechnical grounds. Unfortunately the orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench have resulted in such frustration and have made the award fruitless on an untenable basis."

12. In Sadhu Ram vs. DTC (1983) 4 SCC 156, three judges of the Supreme Court has discussed the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution and has held as under:

"3. We are afraid the High Court misdirected itself. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is truly wide but, for that very reason it has to be exercised with great circumspection. It is not for the High Court to constitute itself into an appellate court over tribunals constituted under special legislations to resolve disputes of a kind qualitatively different from ordinary civil disputes and to readjudicate upon questions of fact decided by those Tribunals......"

13. In Harbans Lal vs. Jagmohan Saran (1985) 4 SCC 333, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 in a writ of Certiorari. In that case the Prescribed Authority as well as the trial court had concurrently reached to the conclusion on the basis of evidence before it and that one "M" was sitting in the vegetable shop of the appellant-tenant on behalf of the appellant. In the writ petition under Article 226 for a writ of certiorari which was filed by respondent/landlord, the high court declined to accept the appellant's case that he was carrying on brick kiln and cold storage business and held that the appellant was unable to establish any legal relationship of agency between himself and 'M' who was occupying the shop within the meaning of Section 12(1)(b) of U.P.Act and the high court had also held that the property must be deemed to be vacant and it remanded the case to the prescribed authority for passing orders on the respondent's application for release of the property. The said order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in this case has clearly held "We are satisfied that the High Court travelled outside its jurisdiction in embarking upon a reappraisal of the evidence".

14. As per the above discussion, it is clear that in exercise of its powers under Section 226 of the Constitution, the courts are not to act as an appellant court. An award can only be set aside only if it is based on no evidence or contrary to any substantive law. It can also be set aside when it is violating principles of natural justice."

11. The present award does not fall in any of these categories. The award

is based on the evidence produced before the Trial Court, therefore, it cannot

be said that the award is in violation of principles of natural justice or that

there was no evidence before the Court to pass this award or that award is

contrary to any substantive law.

12. As regards the relief granted to the respondent, he was superannuated

in February, 2010 as such, question of reinstatement in service did not arose.

The workman was held entitled for 50% of backwages and compensation for

a sum of Rs.10,000/-. In Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Deepali

Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013) 10

SCC 324 and Jasmer Singh (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a

workman whose services has been illegally terminated would be entitled to