The main legal point established is the importance of evidence, principles of natural justice, and maintaining discipline in the workplace in adjudicating industrial disputes.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. - The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the Awards dated 11.09.2002 and 24.09.2002 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IV, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi ('Impugned Awards') whereby the learned Presiding Officer has held that the termination order passed by the competent authority after accepting the report of Enquiry Officer dated 14.07.1987 was correct.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The facts borne out of the records leading to the present petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as a driver with the DTC in the year 1979. On 21.10.1983, the petitioner was served with a chargesheet for alleged misconduct. According, to the Charge-sheet, the petitioner along with his two other associates entered the office of Mr. K. K. Berry, Depot Manager, DTC and during the discussion, the petitioner used abusive language and assaulted the Depot Manager. Petitioner filed a reply against the allegations levelled against him in the Charge-sheet. However, the competent authority was not satisfied with his reply and a regular enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 14.07.1987 wherein the petitioner was found to be guilty of all the charges levelled against him. Hence vide memorandum dated 19.06.1987, the respondent removed the petitioner from his services.

3. The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute against the termination order dated 19.06.1987 which was referred to the learned Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication with the following terms of reference:

'Whether the termination of the services Sh. Mahinder Singh is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?'

4. Initially there was no representation on behalf of the Management/Respondent before the learned Labour Court and by way of ex-parte Award dated 06.12.1999, the learned Labour Court held that the removal of the petitioner from the services is unjustified and directed for the reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages and continuity in service.

5. The respondent filed Writ Petition challenging the ex-parte Award dated 06.12.1999 passed by the learned Labour Court which stood dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2000. Against the dismissal order, the Respondent/Management preferred an Appeal being LPA No. 630/2000. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.08.2002 was pleased to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 3616/2000 dated 11.07.2000 and remanded the matter back to the learned Labour Court with directions to give another opportunity to the Respondents to lead evidence in support of their claims.

6. The petitioner examined himself as WW-1 and the Respondents examined Mr. Yusuf, who conducted the domestic enquiry as MW-1. After examining the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Labour Court vide award dated 04.06.2002 was pleased to declare the enquiry conducted by the Respondents as vitiated as no opportunity was given to the Petitioner to cross-examine the complainant.

7. In view of the same, the learned Labour Court provided opportunity to the Respondent to prove the alleged misconduct committed by the Petitioner. Hence in order to substantiate their case, the Respondent examined 3 Witnesses, Mr. V.K. Singh. Mr. R.K. Kasana and Mr. K.K. Berry. The Petitioner examined Mr. Dhan Singh, Driver as his witness. Mr. Dhan Singh, Driver who claimed to be an eye witness deposed that he was present in the matador from 12.30 pm to 6 pm but he did not hear any commotion or any act of violence against his officer Sh. K. K. Berry with whom he was attached.

8. After considering the additional evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Labour Court vide its Award dated 11.09.2002 held that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct as alleged against him in the charge-sheet. Vid