Manjeet Industries vs Ish Narayan and Another

S.N. Aggarwal, J.—This writ petition filed by the management (the petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated 24.07.2008 passed by Ms. Mamta Tayal, Presiding Officer Labour Court I, Delhi by which an amount of Rs. 1 lac has been awarded in favour of the workman (respondent No. 1 herein) in lieu of his claim for reinstatement and back wages for illegal termination of his services by the petitioner w.e.f. 04.11.1999.

Heard.

Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that respondent No. 1 being the worker was appointed as Helper by the petitioner for about 7 years prior to termination of his services w.e.f. 04.11.1999. His last drawn wages was Rs. 2,348/- per month. However, as per case of the management (the petitioner herein), respondent No. 1 was dismissed from service after holding an ex-parte domestic inquiry against him w.e.f. 08.02.2001. After respondent No. 1 was terminated by the petitioner from its service w.e.f. 04.11.1999, respondent No. 1 had made a complaint to the Labour Office on 04.05.2000 but the petitioner refused to keep him back. He also sent a demand notice to the management demanding his reinstatement through his Advocate. He therefore raised an industrial dispute with regard to his termination which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court and was registered as ID No. 625/2001.

In the statement of claim filed by respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court, he alleged illegal termination of his services by the petitioner w.e.f. 04.11.1999 without giving any opportunity to prove the alleged charges against him. He categorically stated in his statement of claims that he was neither served with any charge-sheet or the documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer to hold him guilty of charges of alleged theft. As against this case of the workman, the petitioner in its written statement filed before the Labour Court took a stand that respondent No. 1 was removed from its service as he was found stealing goods after holding an inquiry in accordance with principles of natural justice. The further case of the management before the Labour Court was that the workman was informed about the inquiry proceedings through his Advocate Mr. H.K. Pathak, Advocate who had sent the demand notice for reinstatement. It is an admitted case of the management that no chargesheet or documents were supplied to respondent No. 1 before he was found guilty of charges leveled against him by the Inquiry Officer. The Industrial Adjudicator vide its order dated 30.01.2008 (Annexure P-10 at page 49 of the paper book) has held that the inquiry against respondent No. 1 was vitiated for non-observation of principles of nature justice. The court below on the basis of evidence has found that though the management was having the local address of respondent No. 1 but despite that it did not send either copy of the chargesheet or the documents relied upon against the workman to him at his local address and chose simply to intimate Mr. H.K. Pathak, Advocate who had sent a demand notice on behalf of the workman. I have gone through the order dated 30.01.2008 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator by which the inquiry issue has been decided against the management. Upon going through the said order, I find that the findings recorded by the Industrial Adjudicator in the said order are based upon cogent material and I do not find any reason to take a different view on this aspect then what has been taken by the court below.

After the inquiry issue was decided by the Industrial Adjudicator against the petitioner, opportunity was given to the petitioner to prove the alleged misconduct against the workman (respondent No. 1 herein) but despite opportunity given to the management, the petitioner chose not to lead any evidence to prove the alleged misconduct and under the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned award wherein it has been held that the petitioner has failed to prove the alleged misconduct of the workman. The termination of respondent No. 1 from the service of the petitioner has been found to be unjustified and illegal and in the considered opinion of this Court, amount of Rs. 1 lac awarded to the workman as compensation in lieu of his claim for reinstatement and back wages by no means can be said to be unreasonable or excessive. I therefore in exercise of extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not like to interfere in the impugned award.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. Stay application is also dismissed.