The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a firm and decisive response to acts of misconduct, particularly those involving the safety of female employees in the workplace.

V.K.SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged two orders dated 20th July, 2004 and 29th October, 2004 passed in ID No. 144/2003 in case titled Sunil Kumar Vs. M/s Delhi Development Authority by learned Labour Court No. VII. By virtue of the first order, the learned Labour Court has held that the inquiry which was held against the petitioner was fair, proper and in accordance with principles of natural justice.

2. So far as the award dated 29th October, 2004 is concerned, the learned Labour Court upheld the imposition of punishment of dismissal on the petitioner.

3. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing the present writ are that the petitioner/workman was employed as a Sweeper with the respondent/management since January 1980. He worked till 22nd August, 1990. On 22nd August, 1990 it was alleged against the petitioner/workman that he tried to molest one lady officer Ms. Nivedita Pandey who was standing near the window. The petitioner had come to the window purportedly trying to close the same on the pretext there being heavy rain and touched her. Ms. Nivedita Pandey raised an alarm on account of which the petitioner was apprehended. The defence of the petitioner/workman was, since the window was jammed, therefore, the touching of Ms. Nivedita Pandey was totally accidental and unintentional. The petitioner was put under suspension and chargesheet was given and an inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer came to a conclusion that the charge of molestation is not established against the petitioner while as the other three charges against him were proved. The petitioner challenged the finding of the Inquiry Officer before the learned Labour Court by getting a reference made before the appropriate government. The learned Labour Court framed an issue whether a fair and a proper inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice against the petitioner and it handed down a finding against the petitioner. The learned Labour Court recorded four charges in the inquiry report on the basis of which the inquiry was conducted were as under:

.(i) Molestation of lady officer named Mrs. Nivedita Pandey by Sh. Sunil during his duty hours at 3rd Floor, Vikas Minar, near the window in the hall.

.(ii) The screaming shouts of Mrs. Pandey were heard by some staff members who came running to the palce of incident.

(iii) In the presence of these staff members Sh. Sunil begged for forgiveness for his misbehavior, misconduct and misdeed.

(iv) Sh. Sunil violated the conduct rules by this act and later on absconded from the official duty immediately after this incident.

4. The learned Labour Court after examining the entire gamut of facts came to the conclusion that there is no perversity in the report of the Inquiry Officer or any violation of principle of natural justice, accordingly, the issue was decided in favour of the management. By the second order the question of quantum of compensation was also decided by the learned Labour Court on 29th October, 2004 and it was held that keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner the imposition of punishment of dismissal against the petitioner was not disproportionate. The learned Labour Court also referred the authorities of the Apex Court in order to take the support that the Courts should generally not interfere with the quantum of punishment once the charge is proved. Reliance in this regard was placed in case titled Devender Swami Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation 2002 AIR (SC) 2545 and Union of India Vs. Narain Singh 2002 (4) SC 207.

.5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been two fold, firstly that the

.petitioner had been employed with the respondent/management since 1980 and had unblemished service record. The incident in question was a mere misunderstanding in as much as it was raining outside and the petitioner who tried

Click Here to Read the rest of this document