Termination without due process violates principles of natural justice, necessitating notice and inquiry; compensation awarded due to managerial failure to follow procedure.

JUDGMENT

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

2. The present petition challenges the impugned award dated 7th April, 2015 by which the Labour Court has awarded compensation to the Respondent-Workman (hereinafter "Workman"), in ID No.461/04 (Old LID No. 84/87) in Ajay Shankar v. School of Correspondence Courses and Continuing Education (Presently known as School of Open Learning, University of Delhi), in the following terms:

"In my considered opinion, in the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, grant of lump sum compensation equivalent to 50% of full back wages/full salary of workman in the scale for the post workman was holding as on 15.09.1982 (the last date on which workman was on sanctioned leave without pay) alongwith annual/other increments in salary as per University Non-teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1971 sine 05.01.1983 (on which date workman had reported for duty but was not allowed to join the duties) till the date of his retirement as per University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1971 to the workman for illegal/unjustified termination of his services by the management and for consequences thereof would meet the ends of justice. If this lumpsum compensation is not paid to workman within one month of award coming into force management shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on this amount from the date of the award till its payment. A sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) is also awarded to workman as costs of litigation payable by the management."

3. The Workman had joined the Petitioner-Management (hereinafter "Management") as a clerk-cum-typist on 1st June, 1966. He was thereafter appointed as an Assistant in 1971 against a temporary leave vacancy. The Management had then extended the Workman's probationary period and a decision was taken on 20th March, 1975 to not confirm the Workman as Assistant and he was reverted to the original post of clerk-cum-typist w.e.f. 21st March, 1975. This was challenged by way of a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, bearing Civil Writ Petition No. 1348/1976, which was dismissed and the services of the Workman were then placed on a temporary basis between October, 1977 and July, 1978 and against the substantive post of Assistant w.e.f. 1st August, 1978, on purely temporary and humanitarian grounds. Between 1980 to 1982 the case of the Management is that the Workman was irregular and his attendance was erratic and he also evaded the receipt of letters sent by the Management. For the period between 16th September, 1982 and 1st January, 1983, it is alleged that there was absence from duty for a period of 108 days. Relying upon Rule 49(v) of the University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter "University Employees Rules") the Management treated the Workman as absconding from duties and deemed the services of the Workman as terminated on 1st January 1983, however, w.e.f. 16th September, 1982, i.e., the date from when he remained absent.

4. The Workman filed a claim before the Ministry of Labour, GNCTD seeking reference for adjudication by the Labour Court. The same was initially dismissed on 21st April, 1993, when the Labour Court passed a `No Dispute Award'. However, an application for setting aside the award was filed by the Workman. Again, due to non-prosecution, a `No Dispute Award' was passed on 1st February, 2000. Finally, another application was moved by the Workman seeking setting aside of the said award which was