Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 2305
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
INSTITUTE OF TUBERCULOSIS & ALLIED DISEASES - Petitioner
Versus
SHRI BABU LAL - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3160/2012 LRS
Decided on : 20th August, 2015
Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate
Mr. Atul T.N., Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair enquiry proceedings and the need for an unequivocal admission by the respondent in cases of termination of service.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Termination of Service - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Section 2(j), Section 58 of the Evidence Act - The court discussed the fairness of the enquiry proceedings, principles of natural justice, and the admissibility of the respondent's admission. The court found that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated as principles of natural justice were not complied with, and the respondent's admission was not unequivocal. The court held that the respondent was entitled to 50% of backwages and compensation for a sum of Rs.10,000.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a kitchen staff, was terminated for misconduct. The Labour Court found the termination illegal, citing unfair enquiry proceedings and lack of unequivocal admission by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the enquiry proceedings to be unfair and in violation of natural justice. It also found that the respondent's admission was not unequivocal. The court held the respondent entitled to 50% of backwages and compensation for a sum of Rs.10,000.
Issues: Fairness of enquiry proceedings, admissibility of respondent's admission, entitlement to backwages and compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the enquiry proceedings were unfair and in violation of natural justice. It also found that the respondent's admission was not unequivocal, leading to the conclusion that the termination was illegal. The respondent was entitled to 50% of backwages and compensation for a sum of Rs.10,000.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, affirming the Labour Court's decision to award the respondent 50% of backwages and compensation for a sum of Rs.10,000.
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 20.08.2011 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma, Delhi in ID No. 58/10 vide which the termination of the respondent herein was held to be illegal and he was held entitled for reinstatement of service and 50% of backwages alongwith compensation for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The backwages were ordered to be paid within 30 days from the date of publication of the award failing which, workman was entitled for interest at simple rate of 6% from the date of award till realisation.
2. The respondent was engaged in the petitioner’s institute as a kitchen staff on daily wages in the year 1986. Thereafter, he was appointed as a regular employee of the institute on 01.01.1987 as a kitchen staff. On 27.01.1994 the institute served the respondent with a memorandum/chargesheet for stealing certain food articles from the kitchen concealed in a bag which were recovered from his bag in the presence of Nursing Superintendent. Pursuant to the chargesheet issued to the respondent, enquiry proceedings were initiated wherein he admitted his guilt. Based on the report of the enquiry officer, a show cause notice dated 04.10.1994 was issued to the respondent to which he submitted a reply. A penalty of reduction of lower stage of pay of Rs.835/- from his present stage of pay of Rs. 859/- for a period of two years was imposed and it was also made clear that the respondent would not earn any increment of pay during this period. It is the case of the petitioner that while undergoing this departmental penalty, the respondent committed another act of misconduct on 13.05.1995 when special food was to be prepared for patients’ dinner in the second shift. He was posted for making rotis but he refused to do his assigned work by the Steward namely Sh.Vinay Kumar Chaturvedi and misbehaved with him. The respondent stated that he would distribute food. A written complaint dated 13.05.1995 was made by Sh.Vinay Kumar Chaturvedi to the director of the petitioner. Another complaint was made by him on 16.05.1995 that he was threatened to withdraw the complaint. Based upon the complaint, a memorandum dated 23.05.1995 was issued to the respondent to explain his conduct and to state as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The respondent replied to the memorandum on 03.07.1995 wherein he denied the allegations. Joint enquiry was constituted into the charges levelled against respondent and Shri.I.L.Kalra, Advocate was appointed as the enquiry officer. The respondent was informed vide letter dated 11.09.1995 regarding the date of enquiry proceedings i.e., 16.09.1995, however, neither the respondent appeared on that date nor registered AD was received back by the enquiry officer. Under the circumstances, another date i.e., 28.09.1995 was fixed by the enquiry officer for conducting enquiry proceedings and intimation was sent to the respondent. On 28.09.1995 the respondent workman appeared in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer read out and explained the memorandum dated 23.05.1995. The respondent admitted his guilt which was duly recorded by the enquiry officer and the respondent also signed the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer informed the respondent that the management may take action against him for the said misconduct on which the respondent stated that he had been working with the petitioner management since 1987 and his case may be considered sympathetically. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report dated 31.10.1995 based upon the admission made during the course of enquiry by the respondent. After considering the chargesheet, enquiry report and other documents, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the respondent on 13.05.1996 as to why the penalty of termination of services be not imposed upon him. The respondent replied to the show cause notice vid
