The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of natural justice and the requirement for the Management to prove misconduct in a labour dispute. The court also emphasized the need to balance equities and exercise discretion in awarding back-wages.

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside and quash the impugned Order dated 07.03.2008 in I.D. No.224/06/96 passed by the Presiding Officer, POLC, Fast Track-XXI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi as well as the impugned Award dated 07.02.2009 in ID No.193/08/96 and the order dated 31.07.2009 regarding correction of the said Award, both passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (Central), Karkardooma, Delhi.

2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, perused the record and have also gone through the written synopsis filed by them.

3. The verbatim of the claim of the workman and the defence of the Management, as noticed and stated by the Labour Court in the impugned Award in ID No.193/08/96, is as under:-

“CASE OF THE WORKMAN: The workman stated that he was employed as Assistant Store Keeper w.e.f. 18.02.1977 and was confirmed in the year 1979. He was charge-sheeted on 23.09.1982. The allegation was that while he was working with Hari Nagar Depot-III, he did not make correct entries of the receipt of diesel in the documents such as bin cards, diesel register, daily receipt vouchers. He denied the charges. An inquiry was conducted despite objections as time barred. Upon the receipt of enquiry report, the management by an order dated 12.02.1988, removed the workman from services. Hence, the claim on the basis that there was no mistake on the part of the workman in recording the receipt and disposal of the diesel. There is no evidence of mis-conduct against him.

CASE OF THE MANAGEMENT: Management contends that the services of the workman was terminated as there were the charges, duly established against him. There was a second charge regarding wrong entries of HS Diesel in the bin card regarding the consumption and closing balance. There was shortage of diesel which the workman defrauded. Enquiry was conducted in a fair manner. It was prayed by the management that the claim be dismissed.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges against the respondent, an Assistant Store Keeper, are that during the year 1978, he made incorrect entries of receipt of diesel in the bus depot and thereby, defrauded the petitioner-Corporation of 16,500 litres of diesel with mala fide intentions. A detailed oral enquiry was held wherein the respondent fully participated. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 16.05.1986 found the charges proved beyond doubt. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a show-cause notice to the respondent and removed the respondent from the service on 12.02.1988.

5. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court in I.D. No.224/06/96 vide order dated 07.03.2008 wrongly decided the preliminary issue regarding the validity of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, holding that the principles of natural justice had been violated since the respondent was not supplied with the copies of certain documents, even though the Enquiry Officer had held that the respondent was free to inspect the documents.

6. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court, later, again committed error and passed the impugned Award dated 07.02.2009 in favour of the respondent, directing payment of back-wages from the date of termination till 31.12.2004 and his reinstatement to the suitable post, subject to the respondent’s medical fitness protecting his pay benefits etc.

7. It is further stated that the order dated 07.03.2008 on the preliminary issue regarding validity of the domestic enquiry is contrary to settled law and the facts on record. The Enquiry Officer had clearly held that the respondent was free to inspect the documents on record but he failed to do so, instead he insisted on his demand for the copies of the documents. The Enquiry Officer Mr. L.C. Goyal was a witness of the Management before the Labour Court, howeve