The key legal principle established is the importance of conducting a fair domestic inquiry following the principles of natural justice and the significance of accepting the inquiry result through a full and final settlement in determining the legality of termination.

VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 29.08.2009 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No. 1128/1998 whereby it was held that the domestic inquiry by the Management was valid and proper and further impugns the award dated 08.09.2009 whereby the petitioner was held not entitled to any relief.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed by the respondent company (previously known as M/s. Syndet and Chemical Industries Ltd.) on 16.07.1988 for the post of electrician. The petitioner was drawing wages of Rs.2,553/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred fifty three) per month. On 28.12.1996 the petitioner was accused of misappropriating money which was meant to be used for the purchase of diesel. Pursuant to the said allegation the respondent company served a charge-sheet on the petitioner on 30.12.1996 alleging that he was supposed to bring 200 liters of diesel for the company generator. However, when the same was measured by the employees of the respondent company, 18 liters of diesel was found to be missing. An inquiry was conducted by the respondent company and on 28.08.1997, the inquiry officer appointed by the respondent company submitted his report wherein the petitioner was found guilty of the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet and a show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner.

3. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 18.11.1997 to the show-cause notice. Thereafter, the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner vide letter dated 17.12.1997.

4. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication in I.D. No.1128/1998 by the competent authority on 14.10.1998 under the following terms of reference:

“Whether termination of services of Sh. Dharam Vir Sharma is illegal and/ or unjustified, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

5. In the said I.D. a statement of claim was filed by the petitioner, written statement was filed by the respondent company and evidences were produced from both the sides. Vide impugned order dated 29.08.2009, learned Labour Court held that the departmental inquiry suffered from no infirmity which culminated to the passing of the award dated 08.09.2009, which is also impugned in the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court failed to appreciate that the petitioner had been employed for nearly 10 years and the respondent had never raised any cause or concern with the petitioner. The domestic inquiry was not conducted by the respondent following the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not permitted to be represented by a co-worker in the inquiry and the inquiry officer had not explained the rules of the inquiry and the proceedings to the petitioner.

7. It was further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not the course of regular duty of the petitioner to obtain fuel and the fact that the fuel had been diverted by the petitioner could not be conclusively established by relying on the coerced apology written by the petitioner. The petitioner had obtained and brought the diesel to the office premises at 3:00 p.m., it was measured two hours later and it was only then that the discrepancy was noted. There is no certainty that the alleged discrepancy in the amount of fuel filled could not have happened at the filling station without the complicity of the petitioner.

8. Lastly, it was contended on behalf petitioner that the respondent company failed to adduce any evidence to support the contention that the full and final payment had actually been accepted by the petitioner. In fact, while considering the facts peculiar to the case where the petitioner is said to have received the full and final settlement amount on the same day as the date of his termination, the trial court should not have a