The court reaffirmed that termination must be substantiated with evidence, emphasizing that reinstatement is not automatic and compensation may be awarded based on case specifics.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by M/s Hindustan Antibiotics Limited (hereinafter, `Management') challenging various orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court - XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter, `Labour Court') in LIR No. 207/16/10 (ID No. 236/10), finally culminating into impugned Award dated 2nd February, 2016. This petition seeks quashing of the said Award and various orders passed by the Labour Court, and also seeks remand of the matter back to the Labour Court to decide afresh after hearing the Management's case.

3. The brief background of the matter is that the Respondent- Workman was appointed as a Medical Representative in the office of the Management in Patna. He worked with the Management until 1996. On 14th November 1996, a charge sheet was issued against him by the Management, on the ground that he had falsely claimed Leave Travel Concession (hereinafter, `LTC') by filing a receipt of travel from Delhi to Patna and back, amounting to Rs. 6,000/-. According to the Management, he had not undertaken the said journey. and had not obtained approval, in respect thereof, of the Management/ competent authority for availing the LTC. In the charge sheet which was issued, an enquiry was conducted and a report dated 10th August, 1999, was submitted by the then enquiry officer. As per the said report, the Workman was found guilty of the charges levelled - i.e., `Fraud or Dishonesty in connection with the company's business or property'. He was then terminated vide order dated 28th August, 2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which concurred with the findings of the first enquiry officer. An appeal was preferred by the Workman before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 9th November 2000. The Workman then filed a writ petition being CWP 3395/2001, seeking quashing of the said termination order dated 28th August 2000, as well as the enquiry report against him. The High Court, vide order dated 6th August 2002, recorded the statement of the Management that a new enquiry officer would be appointed in the matter, and accordingly ordered for the Workman to be reinstated into service, until the fresh enquiry was completed. The writ petition was disposed of with the said direction. The order of the High Court reads:

"Mr. Savla counsel for the respondent has contended that he has sought instructions and new enquiry officer shall be appointed. In view of the statement of counsel for the respondent, impugned order dated 28.8.2000, is quashed. The petitioner be reinstated in the service. However, the petitioner will not claim any back wages till the enquiry is completed. It is also open to the respondent to take whatever action that is contemplated under their own service rules and regulations.

With these directions, writ petition as well as application stand disposed of.

Dasti."

4. The Workman was then reinstated into service on 29th August, 2002, and he joined the services of the Management at the Delhi branch on 5th September 2002. On 30th October, 2002, a fresh charge sheet was issued against the Workman, and an independent domestic enquiry was again conducted. Upon the completion of the said enquiry, a report dated 17th January, 2007 was submitted by the enquiry officer to the Management, vide which he was once again found guilty of all the charges levelled in respect of the LTC availed by him. On 8th July 2008, a show-cause notice was issued against the Workman, enclosing a copy of