The High Court, in exercising supervisory jurisdiction, does not review merits but ensures the decision-making process of the Labour Court complies with principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The Petitioner in the present writ petition is assailing the Awards dated 30.01.2010 and 25.03.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-VII (East District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ("impugned Awards"). Vide the impugned Award dated 30.01.2010 the learned Labour Court was pleased to uphold the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent/Management. Vide the impugned Award dated 25.03.2010, the learned Labour Court was pleased to confirm the punishment of `Compulsory Retirement' imposed on the Petitioner/workman by the Respondent/Management.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk with the National Bureau of Soil Survey of Land Use and Planning (NBSSLUP) on 10.01.1977. Later in the month of January 1979, he was transferred to National Bureau of Plants Genetics Resources (NBPGR), Pusa Campus, Pusa, New Delhi. Later he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 09.06.1993.

3. A Charge sheet dated 02.09.1996, was served upon the petitioner with the following charges:

"On 30th June 95, Shri Naval Kishore, Senior Clerk manhandled Dr. P. N. Gupta, Principal Scientist & Head, Division of Germplasm Evaluation and Acting Director of the Bureau on that day. While Gupta depositing the cash with the Cashier in the afternoon at about 2:45 P.M., Shri Naval Kishore, commented adversely and used unparliamentary/abusive language and not only this but also he physically assaulted/manhandled/intimidated Dr. P. N. Gupta, a Govt./ICAR Employee while on official duty working hours. He acted in a manner of deliberate insubordination, gross indiscipline, and gross moral misconduct during working hours with his superior authority of the level of Acting Director of the Bureau and thus disturbed peace and working condition of the office. By his above Act, Shri Naval Kishore has exhibited lack of discipline, maintenance of proper office decorum and decent standard of conduct during office working hours and acted in a manner unbecoming of council's employee, and thereby contravened Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. "

4. Petitioner vide its reply dated 07.10.1996 denied the allegation levelled against him in the charge-sheet and claimed innocence. Hence the Respondent Management conducted an enquiry in accordance with Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

5. After conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary Authority holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stands proved. Based on the said enquiry report, the disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 03.04.1998 inflicted a penalty of `Compulsory Retirement' on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred a statutory Appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was rejected.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority and Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed Statement of Claim before the learned Labour Court alleging that the Respondent/Management conducted the enquiry in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Respondent/Management filed written statement contending that the domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with law.

7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues:

(i) "Whether a fair and proper enquiry was not conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice?

(ii) Whether the services of the workma