Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 453
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
Jitender Mathuria & Another
Versus
M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd & Another
W.P.(C) Nos. 2923, 3747 of 2007
Decided On : 11-02-2014
For the Appearing parties. Chakraborty, Raavi Birbal, Advocates.
The seriousness of unauthorized absence as a misconduct and the importance of conducting fair inquiries in compliance with natural justice principles.
Headnote:
Inquiry - Employment Dispute - Certified Standing Orders - [Clause 31(7) of the Certified Standing Orders] - [AIR 1961 Calcutta Page 40, (1949) 2 MLJ 310, AIR 1968 SC 266] - The court discussed the vitiating factors of the inquiry, including lack of intimation of ex parte proceedings, absence of evidence supporting medical certificates, and vague charges. The court found that the inquiry was conducted fairly and in compliance with natural justice principles. The court also emphasized the seriousness of unauthorized absence as a misconduct and upheld the termination of the employee.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was terminated for unauthorized absence, which was challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal held the inquiry as vitiated and directed reinstatement without back wages. The petitioner challenged this decision in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inquiry was conducted fairly and in compliance with natural justice principles. The court upheld the termination of the employee, emphasizing the seriousness of unauthorized absence as a misconduct.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fairness of the inquiry, the validity of the termination for unauthorized absence, and the applicability of the Certified Standing Orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inquiry was conducted fairly and in compliance with natural justice principles. The court emphasized the seriousness of unauthorized absence as a misconduct and upheld the termination of the employee.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Tribunal's decision, upholding the termination of the employee for unauthorized absence.
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the above captioned writ petitions which have been filed against an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’ in short) dated September 07, 2006 in I.D. No.61/2003 with a further challenge to the order dated June 27, 2005 passed by the Tribunal, vitiating the inquiry conducted by the petitioner against the respondent Jitender Mathuria in W.P(C) No.3747/2007.
2. For convenience, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited [petitioner in W.P.(C) 3747/2007)] is referred as ‘petitioner’ in this judgment and Mr. Jitender Mathuria as the ‘respondent’.
3. The brief facts are that, the respondent was appointed on March 27, 1998 on compassionate ground after the death of his father, who was an employee of the petitioner. The appointment was at LPG Plant, Village Asauda, Bahadurgarh, Haryana as a General Workman.
4. The respondent was issued a charge sheet dated February 16, 2000 for unauthorized absence for a period of 101 days between the period December 01, 1998 to January 31, 2000 as per Clause 31(7) of the Certified Standing Orders. The charge sheet also stipulated that the petitioner had sent various letters during the period February 02, 1999 to December 16, 1999 informing the respondent about his unauthorized absence, but to no avail. It is noted, the respondent replied to the charge sheet dated February 16, 2000 vide his letter dated March 25, 2000, wherein, one of the defence taken by the respondent was that he was seriously ill. That apart, because of the distance to workplace from his house being 54-55 Kms. and even from Shakurbasti, the place from where the company bus carry the employees for workplace at 5.30 a.m. is also 26-27 Kms. away from his residence, he could not approach on time to get his sick leave application sanctioned from Plant Manager before availing sick leave. In his reply, he had also stated that he may kindly be excused and assured the authority in the petitioner-Corporation that he will not repeat this mistake again. It is noted that on July 18, 2000, the first date of hearing in the domestic inquiry, the respondent as well as his defence counsel were present, on which date, a request for giving charge-sheet in Hindi was made. The request was acceded to. The Inquiry officer who was appointed on July 06, 2000 conducted the inquiry and submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority on February 13, 2001 wherein the inquiry officer had proved the charges levelled against the respondent.
5. A copy of the inquiry report dated February 13, 2001 was given to the respondent to enable him to make a representation on the same. The respondent submitted his representation to the inquiry report on April 20, 2001. The Disciplinary Authority, vide its order dated July 18, 2001 held that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct of habitual absence without leave and discharged him from service with immediate effect.
6. The respondent challenged the order of Disciplinary Authority before the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal. The Appellate Authority, on a consideration of the appeal, did not find any merit in the same and dismissed the appeal. The respondent raised an industrial dispute by approaching the Conciliation Officer. The conciliation proceedings failed and the appropriate government, vide its office order dated April 22, 2003 referred the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication on the following terms:
“Whether action of the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Asaudah, Bahadurgarh in terminating the serves of Jitender Mathuria S/o Late Sh. Radhey Shyam, General Workman with effect from 31.01.2000 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to”?
7. The Tribunal vide its order dated June 27, 2005 on a preliminary issue regarding fairness of the inquiry, held the same stands vitiated. The reasoning given by the Tribunal, vitiating the inquiry, is as under:
