IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rekha Palli, J.
North Delhi Municipal Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Ram Kumar – Respondent
W.P.(C) 8989 of 2015 & CM APPL. 20261 of 2015 – Stay
Decided On : 12-05-2023
Labour Termination - Labour Court - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 342/376 Indian Penal Code - 1.4.1988 - 29.12.2003 - 05.09.2014 - The court held that the termination of the respondent from service without considering his representation seeking permission to report on duty was illegal. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent with back wages w.e.f. 01.07.2006.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Mali, was terminated without inquiry after being acquitted of criminal charges. He had submitted repeated representations seeking permission to rejoin duties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination without considering the respondent's representations was illegal. The petitioner failed to prove any misconduct on the part of the respondent.
Issues: The issues included whether the respondent had abandoned service, whether the termination was illegal, and what relief the respondent was entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner failed to lead evidence to prove the respondent's misconduct and that the respondent had made repeated efforts to rejoin duty, indicating no abandonment of service.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to extend all benefits under the impugned award to the respondent.
JUDGMENT
Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the erstwhile North Delhi Municipal Corporation (now Municipal Corporation of Delhi) seeks to assail the award dated 05.09.2014 passed by the learned Labour Court in I.D.No.173/2010. Vide the impugned award, the learned Labour Court has after coming to a conclusion that the services of the respondent/workman were illegally terminated by the respondent w.e.f. 28.07.2010 without holding any inquiry, directed the petitioner to reinstate him with full back wages w.e.f. 01.07.2006, the date on which a demand notice seeking his reinstatement with back wages was issued on his behalf.
2. As per the factual matrix emerging from the record, the respondent had joined the services as a Mali in 1981 and was regularised w.e.f 01.04.1988. While he was working on the said post, an FIR No. 632/2003 under Section 342/376 Indian Penal Code came to be registered against him and consequently he was taken into custody. The respondent came to be acquitted of all charges in the criminal proceedings and was therefore released from jail on 16.04.2004. It is his case that he reported for assignment of duties to his superior officer on 04.06.2004 and submitted his joining letter but was not permitted to join duty. On 10.09.2004, the petitioner sent a notice to the respondent alleging therein that he was absent without leave since 29.12.2003 and must report for duty. The petitioner replied to the said letter on 20.09.2004 by stating therein that he had reported about his false implication in a criminal case to his immediate superior i.e. to Garden Chaudhary Richpal and had immediately upon being acquitted reported back for duty on 04.06.2004 but was not being permitted to do so despite his repeated personal visits to the office.
3. The respondent thereafter submitted further applications seeking permission to rejoin duty on 03.02.2005, 08.08.2005, 09.08.2005, 02.09.2005 and 20.06.2006 followed by a legal demand notice dated 01.07.2006. Upon receiving no reply, the petitioner approached the Conciliation Officer with his claim petition. The conciliation proceedings failed and consequently a reference to the learned Labour Court was made on 23.03.2010. Soon thereafter the petitioner issued a circular introducing bio-metric system of attendance and pursuant to the orders passed by the Division Bench on 26.05.2010 in W.P.(C) 854/2010 informed the Delhi Police about the list of employees who had not yet been covered under the bio-metric attendance system as also a list of the ghost employees i.e. employees whose name were on the roll but were not found to be existing. The respondent's name was not included in the list furnished to the Delhi Police.
4. Upon the reference being made of the respondent's claim petition, the petitioner filed a written statement before the learned Labour Court wherein while admitting that the respondent's name had been struck off the strength w.e.f 28.07.2010 without holding any inquiry against him. It was contended by the petitioner that there was enough evidence to establish the misconduct on the part of the respondent, who had abandoned service. In the light of this stand taken by the petitioner, the learned Labour Court granted liberty to both sides to lead evidence and after consideration thereof, the Court came to a conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove any misconduct on the part of the respondent.
5. After noticing the fact that no inquiry whatsoever had been ever conducted against the respondent, the learned Labour Court held that that despite opportunity being granted to the petitioner to lead evidence, it had not led even an of iota of evidence to show as to whether the respondent's representation seeking permission to report on duty was ever considered. It therefore came to the conclusion that the termination of the respondent from service without considering his representation seeking perm
The termination of an employee without considering their representations and without proving misconduct is illegal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employer must follow the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act before terminating the service of an employee, and failure to do so may entit....
The termination of employment must be in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement depending on the circumstances.
The judgment established that an employee's services cannot be terminated without following due process of law, and unexplained delay in seeking reinstatement may indicate abandonment of service.
The burden of proof lies on the employer to establish the voluntary nature of the workman's resignation, and the court emphasized the principles governing the payment of back wages.
Point of Law : Instead of granting prayer of reinstatement as well as continuity of service and back-wages, if some lumpsum amount is granted towards full and final settlement, then it will meet the ....
In cases of illegal termination, reinstatement with back wages is the norm, but courts may instead award reasonable compensation based on the context of service and misconduct.
Absence from duty for an extended period can amount to voluntary abandonment of service, negating the need for disciplinary actions prior to termination.
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.