SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



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




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.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(2A)(1)(d) - Dismissal of employee - Writ petitions filed by employer against Tribunal's interim orders and award - Claimant's dismissal set aside by Tribunal due to unfair inquiry process - Tribunal ruled employer did not prove misconduct due to insufficient evidence - Courts advised Tribunal to allow employer to present evidence during remand. (Paras 19, 20, 21)

(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice not observed when necessary documents were not provided to the employee - No personal hearing was provided before dismissal - Breach of procedural fairness. (Paras 14, 14.1)

Facts of the case:
The case involves a dispute between an employee and the employer regarding the legality of the employee's dismissal after an inquiry found misconduct due to unauthorized absence. The Tribunal favored the employee, stating the inquiry was not fair and thus set aside the dismissal order.

Findings of Court:
The impugned award is remanded to the Tribunal to allow the employer to lead evidence on alleged misconduct, with the employee also granted rights to rebut this evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

Issues: The key issues addressed include whether the Tribunal could permit the employer to present evidence on alleged misconduct, and the fairness of the inquiry process that led to dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court established that when an inquiry is found to be flawed, the employer should be allowed to prove alleged misconduct, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Result: Writ petitions are disposed of, remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top