IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
M/s. Delhi International Airport Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Ashwani Goel - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 8215 of 2019, 11157 of 2019, 5854 of 2020; C.M. Appls No. 53086 of 2019, 14965 of 2020, 27755 of 2020
Decided On : 05-07-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute and petitions timeline. (Para 1) |
| 2. background and context of dismissal. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. tribunal's referral and legal grounds. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. submissions by both parties. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's analysis of jurisdiction. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. analysis of previous case laws. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. final thoughts on evidence and justice. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 8. conclusions and orders made by the court. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - XXX XXX XXX
| TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Preface: -........................................................................................................................ 3 |
| Background facts: - ............................................................................................................................... 4 |
| Submissions on behalf of Mr. Goel: - ................................................................................................. 12 |
| Submissions on behalf of DIAL: -..................................................................................................... 15 |
| Analysis and Reasons: - ................................................................................................................. 17 |
| Issue no. (i): - ............................................................................................................................. 17 |
| Issue no. (ii): - ............................................................................................................................. 30 |
| Conclusion: - ................................................................................................................................ 32 |
Preface: -
1. The above-captioned writ petitions concern the respondent i.e. Mr. Ashwani Goel [hereafter referred to as "Mr. Goel"]. Mr. Goel, who was employed with the petitioner i.e. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. [hereafter referred to as "DIAL"] was served with an order of dismissal on 19.05.2010. This led to an eruption of a dispute between Mr. Goel and DIAL, and consequently, a reference was made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal [hereafter referred to as the "Tribunal"].
1.1. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, certain interim orders came to be passed followed by a final award, which has led to the institution of the above-captioned writ petitions.
1.2. DIAL has filed two writ petitions, i.e., W.P. (C) 8215/2019 and W.P. (C) 11157/2019. DIAL, via W.P. (C) 8215/2019, has assailed interim orders dated 11.03.2019 and 03.06.2019 [hereafter referred to as "impugned orders"]. Likewise, DIAL has assailed the final award dated 02.07.2019, passed by the Tribunal [hereafter referred to as "impugned award"], via W.P. (C) 11157/2019.
1.3. Since the impugned award, while setting aside the dismissal order and directing reinstatement of Mr. Goel with consequential benefits, limited the back wages to 60% of the outstanding amount, Mr. Goel has filed W.P. (C) 5854/2020 assailing this part of the impugned award.
2. Before I set out the core issues, which arise for consideration, in the above-referenced writ petitions, it would be relevant to set out the broad contours of the dispute obtaining between the parties.
Backdrop: -
3. Mr. Goel was issued an offer of appointment by DIAL as Senior Assistant - Airside Monitoring Inspector, (See Clause 10 (e) of the Offer Letter dated 04.07.2007.) , in response to an application made by him, dated 04.07.2007. The offer letter required Mr. Goel to join DIAL on or before 15.07.2007 subject to him being declared medically fit. The offer letter referred, broadly, to the terms and conditions of the employment and also the fact that his spouse, two dependent children, and dependent parents including himself, will be covered u
B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India
Biecco Lawrie Limited and Anr. vs. State of West Bengal and Anr.
Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO
Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya D. Ed. & Ors.
Dena Bank vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel
G.B. Mahajan vs. Jalgaon Municipal Council
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque
High Court of Gujarat vs. Hitendra Vrajlal Ashara and Anr.
Kaushalya Devi vs. Bachittar Singh
Nagandra Nath Bora vs. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam
The tribunal's failure to allow the employer to prove alleged misconduct now necessitates remand for additional evidence while ensuring procedural fairness towards the employee.
The Labour Court must first determine the validity of domestic enquiry before evaluating evidence presented for dismissal in industrial disputes.
The management must seek leave of the court/tribunal in the written statement itself to lead additional evidence to support its action in the alternative and without prejudice to its rights and conte....
Fairness of disputed domestic enquiry must be decided as preliminary issue by Labour Court to enable parties to adduce additional evidence if enquiry held unfair.
The management's right to challenge the validity of a domestic enquiry and present fresh evidence is contingent upon the preliminary findings of the Tribunal, and such challenges should not delay the....
The court upheld the dismissal of the employee for attempted theft, confirming the fairness of the domestic inquiry and the appropriateness of the punishment despite claims of procedural irregulariti....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.