Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2402
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
DDA - Petitioner
Versus
Mool Chand - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 9468 of 2004 & CM No. 6772 of 2004
Decided On : 21-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Birbal, Mr. Sanjay Singh
The decision of the Labour Court to award 50% back wages to the respondent is understandable. However, the Supreme Court substituted the decision of the Labour Court to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages to an award of lumpsum compensation.
Headnote:
Labour Court - Termination of Service - Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 - Industrial Dispute No. 154/84 - The Labour Court held that the services of the respondent had been terminated illegally and unjustifiably, and that he was entitled to be reinstated in service. The Labour Court also directed that the respondent be reinstated in service with 50% back wages and continuity of service. The High Court set aside the said award of the Labour Court on the ground that the Labour Court erred in proceeding, without any pause, to decide the subsequent issue of whether the services of the respondent had been terminated illegally/unjustifiably, and of the relief to which he would be entitled as a consequence thereof, without affording the management opportunity to lead evidence in this regard. The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Labour Court to award 50% back wages to the respondent is understandable. However, it substituted the decision of the Labour Court to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages to an award of lumpsum compensation. The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to pay, to the respondent, an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, as lump sum compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was terminated from service by the petitioner, and raised an industrial dispute resulting in reference to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the services of the respondent had been terminated illegally and unjustifiably, and that he was entitled to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages and continuity of service. The High Court set aside the said award of the Labour Court on the ground that the Labour Court erred in proceeding, without any pause, to decide the subsequent issue of whether the services of the respondent had been terminated illegally/unjustifiably, and of the relief to which he would be entitled as a consequence thereof, without affording the management opportunity to lead evidence in this regard.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Labour Court to award 50% back wages to the respondent is understandable. However, it substituted the decision of the Labour Court to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages to an award of lumpsum compensation. The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to pay, to the respondent, an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, as lump sum compensation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the termination of the respondent's service, the decision of the Labour Court to award 50% back wages, and the subsequent setting aside of the said award by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Labour Court to award 50% back wages to the respondent is understandable. However, it substituted the decision of the Labour Court to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages to an award of lumpsum compensation. The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to pay, to the respondent, an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, as lump sum compensation.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to pay, to the respondent, an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, as lump sum compensation.
1. This writ petition, filed by the DDA under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails (i) order, dated 3rd January, 2003 whereby the Labour Court had exonerated the respondent of the charges leveled against him by the management of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the management”) and (ii) consequential award, dated 5th March, 2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I (hereinafter referred to as a “Labour Court”) in Industrial Dispute No. 154/84, which held the respondent to be entitled to reinstatement in service with 50% back wages and continuity of service.
2. A brief recital of the facts would be necessary at the outset.
3. In June, 1980, the respondent was posted as Chowkidar with the petitioner. During the period he served as such, it is alleged that, on 14th June, 1980, 1221 G.I. Pipes of 15mm diameter, 54 G.I. pipes of 20mm diameter and 18 G.I. pipe of 32mm diameter, totally worth Rs.73,600/- were stolen from the store of the petitioner. An FIR was also registered. This resulted in the issuance, to the respondent, of a Statement of Imputation dated 23rd June, 1980, by the petitioner, alleging that the theft, which had occurred between 8.30 pm and 9pm on 14th June, 1980, had taken place by the breaking open the lock of the main gate and that, as the respondent was one of the security guards deputed for watch and ward of the godown during the said shift, he was guilty of “general laxity and sheer negligence”. The respondent was, therefore, directed to show cause why disciplinary action be not initiated against him.
4. Inquiry took place, resulting in the Inquiry Officer submitting a report dated July 1981, containing the following findings:-
(i) The conspiracy for the abovementioned theft was arranged by Maman Chand, security guard, with some outsiders. The stolen goods were removed in a truck.
(ii) The thieves broke open the lock on the main gate, loaded the pipes on the truck and fled.
(iii) Maman Chand was aided, in his nefarious act, by Rajender Singh, Mehar Chand and the respondent, who enabled Maman Chand to carry out his mission by purposely abstaining from the site.
(iv) After the theft had taken place, Rajinder Singh and the respondent returned to the store at 10 pm. The security guard, who officiated during the next shift, P.T. Ram was also callous as he did not check the lock on the gate, in order to “visualize” the missing material, which was quite voluminous and lying in front of the gate.
(v) The loss was only noticed by the security staff on the next date. In the circumstances, it was opined that Maman Chand, Rajinder Singh, Mehar Chand and the respondent were a danger to the security and property of the petitioner, and it was recommended that their services be immediately dispensed with. Other security staff were also advised to be strongly reprimanded.
5. As a sequel to the submission of the aforementioned inquiry report, the services of the respondent were terminated, under Rule 5(i) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 as extended to employees of the petitioner vide Regulation 6 of the Delhi Development Authority (Salaries & Allowance and Conditions of Services), Regulation 1961, by way of establishment order No.174, dated 01st June, 1980.
6. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, resulting in reference, by the Delhi Government, of the following dispute, to the Labour Court, for adjudication:
“Whether the services of Mool Chand were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so, what relief is he entitled?”
The reference was registered as ID 154/84.
7. In his statement of claim, dated 10th December, 1984, filed before the Labour Court, the respondent contended thus:-
(i) He had been appointed as Chowkidar but was actually assigned the work of electrician.
(ii) For a while before the fatal night, Maman Chand was bringing considerable pressure, on the respondent, to go to his relative’s house to carry out some electrical repairs. The respo
