Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Manohar Lal on 27 January, 2020
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 27.01.2020
+ W.P.(C) 6558/2017 & CM APPL. 27188/2017
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate.
versus
MANOHAR LAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Tarang Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This petition impugns the order dated 22.04.2017 passed by the
learned Labour Court in LC No.2319/16 (Old No. DID 62/15), on the
ground that it is erroneous in law, inasmuch as it has invoked a clause of the
Judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI)
and Ors., SLP (C) Nos.20525/2011 decided on 21.07.2016, which held inter
alia as under:
"30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to
explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view
of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion
thus:
(1) Information given to the employer by a candidate
as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.02.2020
16:39:07
of a criminal case, whether before or after
entering into service must be true and there
should be no suppression or false mention of
required information.
(2)(c) Where the declarant has answered the
questions in the negative and on verification it is
found that the answers were false, the employer may
refuse to employ the declarant (or discharge him, if
already employed), even if the declarant had been
cleared of the charges or is acquitted. This is because
when there is suppression or non-disclosure of
material information bearing on his character, that
itself becomes a reason for not employing the
declarant."
2. The respondent's employment was terminated by the DTC. It was
impugned before the learned Labour Court. His claim was allowed and
DTC was directed to reinstate him.
3. It is the petitioner's case that the respondent did not disclose that there
was a criminal case pending against him under section 448/341 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. Had this information been available to the prospective
employer i.e. DTC, it may have initiated enquiries apropos the suitability of
the candidate for the job.
4. It is not in dispute that the candidate did not disclose the relevant
information, therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that he
suppressed the information. The employer was deprived from taking a
considered decision about the candidate's employability. That being the
position, the impugned order relying on para 30 (4) of the Supreme Court's
judgment is erroneous.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.02.2020
16:39:07
5. The impugned order has dealt with the substance of the criminal
proceedings as under:
"13. The Hon'ble Apex Court reviewed all the laws of
the land in respect of suppression and false information
of involvement in a criminal case, in verification form /
CVR and held in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI)
and Ors., SLP (C) Nos.20525/2011 decided on
21.07.2016 as under:
"para 30(4). In case there is suppression or false
information of involvement in a criminal case where
conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before
filling of the application / verification form and such fact
later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the
following recourse appropriate to the case may be
adopted: -
(a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had
been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or
for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have
rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the
employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression
of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
(b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is
not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or
terminate services of the employee.
(c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case
involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous / serious
nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean
acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given,
the employer may consider all relevant facts available as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.02.2020
16:39:07
to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to
the continuance of the employee."
As discussed in para No.30(4) (a) in the above
judgment, the Apex Court held that in a trivial case in
which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting
slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if
disclosed would not have rendered any incumbent unfit
for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion,
ignore such suppression of fact or false information by
condoning the lapse. In the case in hand, the claimant
had not given information to the employer that a case
under Section 448/34 IPC was pending against him
when he had joined it that case was still pending. He has
still not been convicted. So, claimant's case is on better
footing than the case discussed by the Apex Court in
para No. 30(4)."
6. The Court is of the view that the learned Labour Court misconstrued
the directions of the Supreme Court because the case was still pending and it
had not been decided, therefore, the nature of the punishment, etc., was yet
to be determined.
7. What is important for a prospective employer is to take a decision
after disclosure of relevant facts by the prospective candidate. There could
well be an issue of the integrity of the candidate. The non-disclosure of the
information could well lend to forming such a decision.
8. However, what also emanates from the preceding discussions, is that
the lis arose apropos an ancestral property of the respondent, which was
sought to be disposed-off allegedly in an objectionable manner, and the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.02.2020
16:39:07
response of the respondent is stated to be most natural i.e. to object the entry
of a third party into his ancestral property, in which he claims to be in
rightful ownership. More significantly, the lis was a dispute between family
members, it could not possibly have any bearing upon his work with the
DTC. At worst, it was a case of criminal trespass by a third party, whose
rights are still in dispute. It is claimed that there is no case of criminal
assault on anybody.
9. Furthermore, when an enquiry was made, the respondent had duly
furnished the requisite documents to the said Corporation, which has not
taken a view on the merits of the case but has simply said that since there
was a non-disclosure, therefore, it terminated his service.
10. In the circumstances, the conduct of the respondent which was
primarily originated from a civil dispute and allegedly did not entail criminal
physical assault, the non-disclosure cannot be considered to be of so
significant a nature as to render him to be dismissed from services. The
petition raises no significant reason to interfere with the impugned order. It
is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
JANUARY 27, 2020
AB
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.02.2020
16:39:07
