Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 3399
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON LTD. – Appellant
Versus
GAJENDRA SINGH RAWAT - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7826 of 2008 & Crl. MA 15112 of 2008
Decided on : 09-09-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Raj Birbal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Raavi Birbal, Mr. Prem Prakash & Ms. Seema Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Kaushal Yadav & Mr. Vivekanand Rana, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of misconduct, loss of confidence, and proportionality in imposing punishment in cases of termination of employment. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of compliance with natural justice and specific legal provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Headnote:
THEFT - Labour Dispute - Ss. 25F, 25N r/w section 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act - [25F, 25N, 2(oo)] - The court discussed the termination of the workman's services, the allegations of theft and stealing of confidential documents, violation of natural justice, and violation of specific sections of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court also highlighted the legal provisions related to loss of confidence, termination of employment, and the principles of misconduct and proportionality in imposing punishment.
Fact of the Case:
The workman was terminated from his employment on allegations of theft and stealing confidential documents. The workman claimed that the termination was illegal and unjustified, citing violation of natural justice and specific sections of the Industrial Disputes Act. The management contested the claim, asserting that the workman's actions constituted misconduct and loss of confidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the workman, granting compensation of Rs.10,44,000/- along with interest and costs of litigation. The court held that the termination of the workman's services was arbitrary and whimsical, and there was no substance in the allegations of theft. The court also noted the violation of principles of natural justice and non-compliance with the Model Standing Orders.
Issues: The issues framed were: (1) Whether the order of termination of the services of workman w.e.f. 17/02/1999 is justified and legal? (2) To what relief, if any, is the workman entitled against the management in terms of reference?
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of misconduct, loss of confidence, and proportionality in imposing punishment. It also highlighted the legal provisions related to termination of employment, violation of natural justice, and compliance with Model Standing Orders.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned award passed by the Labour Court was set aside. The court directed that the payment already made to the respondent would not be recovered.
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in this writ petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 14.03.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court vide which the claim filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’) was allowed and he was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,44,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of termination till realization besides litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-.
2. The factual matrix of the case leading to filing of the present petition succinctly stated is as follows:
3. The workman was initially appointed on six months’ probation with effect from 01.11.1970 by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the management’) and on successful completion of probation period, he was given permanent employment with effect from 01.05.1971 as ‘Peon-cum-Packing Assistant’. Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Packer with effect from 01.01.1983 by the Controller of Head Office at Mumbai and then as an Assistant Charge Head with effect from 01.01.1990. On 17.02.1999, the Delhi Branch of the management issued a letter terminating the services of the workman with immediate effect on account of misconduct of theft and stealing the privileged and confidential documents from the branch office premises and threatening the employer to circulate it to the outside agencies. On receipt of the termination order, the workman sent his reply dated 05.03.1999 refuting the allegations and seeking reinstatement. The demand notices were also sent. Thereafter the workman filed an application for conciliation before the Conciliation Officer, Delhi Administration, Karampura, Delhi. On failure of conciliation proceedings, Mr Satish Gathwal, Secretary Labour, Government of NCT, Delhi on 14.10.1999 vide reference No. F.24 (3917)/99Lab./4242226 referred the dispute between the management of M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd. and its workman Shri Gejendera Singh Rawat, in the following terms of reference:
“Whether the dismissal of Sh. Gajendera Singh Rawat is illegal and unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”
4. Pursuant to the reference, claim was filed by the workman stating therein that the management after his long period of service, accused him of having committed theft, dismissed him from service without even serving any show cause notice or charge sheet. Even no inquiry was held against him nor was he afforded any opportunity of being heard. The action of the employer is in violation of provisions of natural justice and in violation of Ss. 25F, 25N r/w section 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act. No payment of wages in lieu of notice and compensation were paid as prescribed. According to him, he was victimized by the Branch Manager on account of his bias, malafide and sense of revenge because of his refusal to continue to work as domestic servant at his residence before and after office hours and also on sundays and other holidays, which he used to perform earlier. According to workman, he was given so-called confidential papers by the Branch Manager for keeping them at his residence and since the workman sent these papers to Head Office, the branch manager got agitated. The branch manager had also placed him under suspension in another case since 24.06.1997 and had prohibited his entry into the premises of Delhi branch office since that date. In fact, the workman was even accompanied by security guards whenever he was called by the inquiry officer to attend the proceedings while going into and coming out of the room and even when the inquiry proceedings took place. According to the workman there was large scale corruption and corrupt practices going on at Delhi branch office of the establishment, causing much loss to the business of the employer and when the workman tried to bring the same to the notice of the said branch manager, he did not take any action to stop the same. The said activities were being carried o
