Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 762
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
P.K.BHASIN, J.
D.T.C. : Petitioner
Versus
HARISH BABU : Respondent
W.P.(C) 8746/2010
Decided On : 7th March, 2012
Mr. Anand Nandan, Advocate
Ms. Rashmi B. Singh, Advocate
The burden of proof lies with the management to establish alleged misconduct, and the principles of natural justice must be adhered to in conducting inquiries.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Employment Dispute - [Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Section 2A, Section 10(1)] - The court discussed the alleged misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty and the fairness of the departmental inquiry. It highlighted the principles of natural justice and the burden of proof on the management to establish the misconduct. The court found that the management failed to prove the misconduct, leading to the reinstatement of the respondent-workman.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-workman was terminated from service due to alleged unauthorized absence from duty. He raised an industrial dispute, claiming that his termination was illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alleged misconduct was not proved, and the termination of the respondent-workman was illegal and unjustified. Consequently, the respondent-workman was ordered to be reinstated in service with back wages.
Issues: The fairness of the departmental inquiry and the validity of the termination based on alleged misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The management had the burden of proving the alleged misconduct, and the court emphasized the principles of natural justice in conducting the inquiry. The court found that the management failed to establish the misconduct, leading to the reinstatement of the respondent-workman.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the respondent-workman was ordered to be reinstated in service with back wages.
P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL)
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Award dated 02.02.2010 passed by learned Labour Court whereby reinstatement of the respondent/workman in service and payment of ` 50,000 also to him has been ordered.
2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-workman was charge-sheeted on 21.03.1994 while in the employment of the Delhi Transport Corporation(‘the management’ in short) as a conductor on the allegation that he had remained absent from duty unauthorisedly for 171 days from 1.1.1993 to 30.11.1993 which showed his lack of interest in the job. The respondent-workman had refuted that allegation in his reply to the charge-sheet. In his reply to the charge-sheet, the respondent-workman had claimed that he had submitted leave applications for the entire period of his alleged unauthorized absence from duty and that he had to take leave because of his own sickness and he had submitted medical certificates also. The management did not feel satisfied with the reply to the charge-sheet given by the respondent-workman and so it decided to conduct a departmental inquiry. In the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found the allegation levelled against the respondent-workman having been proved and the Disciplinary Authority accepting the enquiry officer’s report imposed upon the respondent-workman punishment of his removal from service.
3. The respondent-workman feeling aggrieved, raised an industrial dispute by approaching the labour authorities and in due course, the dispute raised by him to the effect that his services had been illegally terminated was referred for adjudication to the labour Court.
4. Before the labour Court, the respondent-workman filed his statement of claim wherein he had reiterated what he had stated in his reply to the charge-sheet that he had duly submitted his leave applications because of his own sickness.
5. The management filed its written statement opposing the claim of the respondent-workman and it took the stand that the respondent-workman had been removed from service after holding proper enquiry in which he was found guilty of the charge of unauthorized absence for duty for 171 days.
6. Since the respondent-workman had challenged the fairness and validity of the departmental inquiry conducted by the management, the learned Labour Court tried that controversy as a preliminary issue and vide order dated 8th August, 2008, that issue was decided against the management. Thereafter, an opportunity was given to the management to adduce evidence before the Court itself in order to establish the allegation of misconduct levelled against the respondent-workman. The management then examined two witnesses in support of its case while the respondent-workman examined only himself.
7. After examining the evidence adduced by the parties, the Labour Court, gave its Award on 02.02.2010 holding that the alleged misconduct had not been proved and so the termination of the services of the respondent-workman by the management was illegal and unjustified. Consequently the respondent-workman was ordered to re-instated in service with lump sum payment of ` 50,000 as back wages.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the management filed the present writ petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions to convince this Court that the decision of the labour Court on the issue of enquiry is not sustainable as there was no infirmity in the conduct of the enquiry by the enquiry officer and further that in any event, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the management before the Labour Court the misconduct of unauthorised absence from duty for 171 days had been duly established and consequently his re-instatement in service should not have been ordered.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-workman fully supported the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court in his favour.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner-management had during the course of hearing had not disputed that no
