IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
Delhi International Airport Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Ashwani Goel - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8215 of 2019, W.P.(C) 11157 of 2019, CM Appls. 53086 of 2019, 14965 of 2020 and 27755 of 2020 and W.P.(C) 5854 of 2020
Decided On : 05-07-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute initiation and relevant petitions (Para 1) |
| 2. employee dismissal background and procedural issues (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. tribunal proceedings and preliminary issues determination (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. arguments from parties regarding proceedings (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court analysis focusing on the procedural fairness and jurisdiction (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. remanding the case for a decision on merits (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. final directives and jurisdictional conclusions (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J.:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface: -
Background facts: -
Submissions on behalf of Mr. Goel: -
Submissions on behalf of DIAL: -
Analysis and Reasons: -
Issue no. (i): -
Issue no. (ii): -
Conclusion: -
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 under a Group Mediclaim Insurance Policy for a maximum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. Besides this, it was also indicated that Mr. Goel will be exclusively covered under the Group Personal Accident Insurance. The premium, for the above policies, was to be factored in as cost to the company. A perusal of the offer letter discloses that Mr. Goel was required to report to "Head Airside".
4. The offer made, was accepted by Mr. Goel and he joined DIAL's services on 19.07.2007.
4.1. According to Mr. Goel, in and about, 17.05.2008, there was a fracas between him and two officials of Indian Airlines [i.e. Shri Baburao and Shri Govardan Lal] triggered by an intimation sent by him concerning an unattended aircraft of Indian Airlines. Mr. Goel has claimed that the inspection vehicle in which the two employees [i.e. Baburao and Govardhan] approached the site, where the aircraft was parked, did not bear the original vehicle permit, which led to a scuffle. Mr. Goel claims that, although he was injured, he ended up being issued a memo dated 30.06.2008. This memo levelled charges of non- performance against Mr. G
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....
The court established that a fair domestic enquiry and proportional punishment for habitual unauthorized absence from duty are essential under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the burden o....
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....
Labour Courts must refrain from re-evaluating evidence after confirming the fairness of a disciplinary inquiry; interference is only permissible when findings are perverse or lack evidence.
The court upheld the Labour Court's award on the grounds of procedural failures in the termination process, affirming that a fair inquiry must allow an employee access to critical evidence and adhere....
The court emphasized the distinct nature of proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) and Section 10 of the I.D. Act, and the limited jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India....
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.