Disciplinary proceedings can continue despite acquittal in a criminal case, focusing on preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. The petitioner, vide the present petition seeks the setting aside of the impugned judgment/order dated 20.10.2020 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XIX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in LIR No.213 of 2006/LIR No.221 of 2010/Unique Case I.D.No.02402C0042922002 titled as "Sh. Satish Sachiv Baba Vs. C.P.W.D. (M.R.D.)" and also seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari against the order dated 08.03.2000 of the Executive Engineer, PWD Division, whereby, the services of the petitioner had been terminated apart from a prayer made by the petitioner seeking that the respondent be directed to take the petitioner back into service with back wages and all other consequential benefits.

2. The reference made by the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi vide Labour notification No. S-11011/2/75/DK (1A) of the industrial dispute between the petitioner and the CPWD (M.R.D.), was as under:

"Whether services of Satish Sachiv Baba S/o Sh.Ratan Lal have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief alongwith other consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt. Notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect."

3. On service of notice of the reference, the petitioner had filed the statement of claim praying for passing an award in his favour and against the management with the direction to the management to reinstate him in service with continuity of service, full back wages along with consequential benefits and seeking a declaration that the order of termination dated 10.03.2000 issued by the management was illegal and unjustified.

4. The management contested the claim by filing the written statement and on completion of pleadings in the matter, the issue framed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XIX on 12.09.2003 was "as per terms of reference".

5. The evidence was led by the workman and in as much as, it was observed during the proceedings that there was a departmental inquiry held before the termination of the claimant, the additional issue then had been framed to the effect:

"Additional Issue: Whether enquiry conducted by the management was proper and fair?", whereafter, the parties were given liberty to adduce evidence, which was led by both sides.

6. An application for amendment was filed by the workman, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2009, however, in the LPA No.243/2009 & CM. No. 7655 & 7871/2009 filed by the workman before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the workman was allowed to file the amended statement of claim which was filed by the workman on 03.09.2009, wherein, he incorporated that he was working w.e.f. 23.09.1980 and continuously worked thereafter but due to some technical reasons and policy of government a proper certificate for confirming the workman could not be issued and he was confirmed w.e.f. 30.03.1991 and in the amended written statement, the management stated that the workman was engaged as a Beldar on the muster-roll in the year 1980 and was appointed as a regular Beldar in the year 1991 who joined duty only on 15.04.1991 and in the statement of claim, the workman had admitted that he was allowed to join duty on 16.04. 1991, in as much as, the submission made in the amended claim was admitted by the managem