Delhi High Court
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court on 12 March, 2015
Author: Deepa Sharma
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2406/2002
% Judgment reserved on 12.02.2015
Judgement pronounced on: 12.03.2015
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Rajat Navet and Mr Rohan
Yadav, Advs.
versus
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT ...Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
1. Vide the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order
of the Labour Court dated 09.03.1989, whereby the Court had found the
domestic enquiry as perverse and ordered for recording of the evidence to
prove the misconduct and the order of the Labour Court dated 09.03.2001,
whereby the Labour Court had set aside the dismissal of the workman and
awarded a compensation of an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of
reinstatement and continuity in service with back wages.
2. The workman had also challenged these orders vide his writ petition
No. 6000/2001, however, the same was dismissed in default on 09.10.2013
as it was not being pursued by the workman.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a public sector
corporation dealing in the manufacturing and distribution of petrol and
petroleum products. The respondent No.2-Md. Idris was its workman and in
the year 1974, he was transferred to Mughal Sarai, U.P. from Delhi. This
transfer was done in view of the exigencies of work and the place of transfer
was near the native place of the workman which was at Barabanki, U.P.
Subsequently, since the workman did not obey the transfer order, a
chargesheet was issued to him and a departmental enquiry was constituted
and vide order dated 14.03.1975, the workman was dismissed from service.
The workman raised a dispute before the Delhi Administration and the Delhi
Administration had referred the dispute vide its order dated 09.12.1975 to
the Labour Court. Both the parties contested the proceedings before the
Labour Court. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the Labour Court:-
"1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to
entertain this case?
2. Whether the Domestic Enquiry was not
conducted in a fair and impartial manner and the
findings are perverse?
3. Whether the transfer order to Mughal Sarai
of the workman was illegal and on account of
victimisation?
4. Whether the order of dismissal is not legal?
5. As in the reference."
4. Issues No.1 and 2 were treated as preliminary issue. The Labour
Court vide its order dated 09.03.1989 decided the preliminary issues against
the petitioner and the Labour Court had given its findings that the Delhi
Administration was the appropriate Government in this case. The domestic
enquiry, however, found to be defective as the findings of the enquiry were
found to be perverse. Thereafter, the parties had led its evidence before the
Labour Court regarding the validity of the enquiry. Vide its order dated
09.03.2001, the Labour Court had given its findings that the petitioner had
failed to prove the charges against the respondent-workman and thus
termination was illegal.
5. The petitioner has challenged the findings of the Labour Court on the
ground that the findings are perverse. It is submitted that the reference made
by the Delhi Administration was bad in law because in the case of petitioner,
the Delhi Administration is not the appropriate Government. It is submitted
that the petitioner being a controlled industry, the appropriate Government
in this case is the Central Government and, therefore, the reference was
incompetent and ultra vires. It is submitted that territorial jurisdiction alone
would not confer jurisdiction on Delhi Administration to refer a dispute for
adjudication to Labour Court in Delhi. It is submitted that findings of the
Labour Court, therefore, are without any jurisdiction. Reliance is place on
the findings of this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Marketing Division vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
and Others Civil Writ No.4303/1997, wherein vide order dated 06.12.1999,
this Court had declared that the appropriate Government in case of the
petitioner is Central Government and not Government of NCT of Delhi. It is
submitted that in view of this fact the findings of the Labour Court are
without any jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. The findings of the
Labour Court are also challenged on merit.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
No one has attended the Court proceedings on behalf of respondent No.2,
i.e., the workman. It is also clear that the workman although had challenged
the awards dated 09.03.1989 and 09.03.2001 vide writ petition
No.6000/2001, he has not pursued the same and the said writ petition was
dismissed in default on 09.10.2013.
7. In the present case, the following reference has been made to the
Labour Court for adjudication on the basis of the dispute raised by the
workman:-
"The Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration,
Delhi vide his order No. F.24(1990/75-Lab/44222)
dated 19.12.75. The term of reference is as
follows:-
"Whether the dismissal of Shir Mohd.
Idris is illegal and/or unjustified and if
so, to what relief is he entitled and
what directions are necessary in this
respect?"
8. Therefore, it is clear that the order of reference has been made by the
Secretary, Delhi Administration. The Management in its written statement
has taken the preliminary objection that the reference by Delhi
Administration was bad in law because Delhi Administration was
incompetent and thus, the reference was invalid as it was not made by the
appropriate Government.
9. The Labour Court has treated this plea of respondent as preliminary
objection. While giving its findings on this issue, it has held that since the
dispute had arisen within territorial limits of Delhi, the appropriate
Government to refer the dispute was Delhi Administration.
10. This Court in writ petition No.4303/1997 has given the following
findings:-
"As Indian Oil Corporation Limited is a controlled
industry, the appropriate Government in relation to
Indian Oil Corporation Limited would be Central
Government and not Government of NCT of
Delhi"
11. In view of this proposition of law whereby it is settled that the
Government of NCT of Delhi is not the appropriate Government of the
petitioner, the reference made by the Delhi Administration in the present
case, was, therefore, without any authority and was bad in law and the entire
proceedings held by the Tribunal pursuant to the said reference, therefore,
was also bad in law. Since the reference is bad in law, no opinion has been
given on the merits of the case. The findings of the Labour Court that the
appropriate Government in present case is Delhi Administration are,
therefore, an error apparent on the face of the record. The award is liable to
be set aside on this ground alone. Since the orders on merit have been passed
without a valid and appropriate reference, both the orders dated 09.03.1989
and 09.03.2001 are illegal.
For the foregoing reasons, the orders dated 09.03.1989 and
09.03.2001 are hereby set aside.
The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
MARCH ____, 2015
BG
