The court affirmed that a fairness in domestic enquiry is paramount, and procedural lapses do not automatically invalidate findings unless they cause demonstrable prejudice to the employee.

JUDGMENT :

RENU BHATNAGAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner, Shri Aftab Ahmad, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Award dated 04.02.2003 and Order dated 27.09.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-VIII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Labour Court') in I.D. No. 35/98.

2. By the Impugned Award dated 04.02.2003, the learned Labour Court dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner holding that the services of the workman were not terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and that he is not entitled to any relief. Prior to this, vide Order dated 27.09.2002, the learned Labour Court had decided a preliminary issue holding that the enquiry conducted against the workman was just and fair.

3. In nutshell, the case of petitioner before the learned Labour Court was that he was working with respondent No. 2/M/s. Unique Motors, Maruti Authorised Service Station (hereinafter referred to as 'Management'), as a Mechanic with effect from 18.09.1992. The petitioner was duly registered with the ESIC and was discharging his duties efficiently and honestly.

4. The petitioner's duty timings were from 10:30 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. His initial monthly salary was Rs. 2,500/- per month, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 2,800/- per month on account of his satisfactory performance.

5. On 07.10.1994, the Management issued a notice of termination to the petitioner alleging the following charges :

I. Since July 1994the workman had been absenting from duty without leave during the period from 01.07.1994 to 21.07.1994, on 25.07.1994, on 26.08.1994, on 08.09.1994, from 27.09.1994 to 30.09.1994, on 01.10.1994, and from 06.10.1994 to 08.10.1994;

II. The workman was coming to duty late by 1 to 2 hours daily; and III. There were perpetual complaints in his workmanship.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 21.10.1994 through his counsel requesting the Management to withdraw the said notice of termination as the same was issued illegally and arbitrarily without adopting due process of law and in utter violation of the principles of natural justice.

7. Thereafter, on 31.10.1994, the Management appointed one Shri V.K. Nayyar as Enquiry Officer to hold a domestic enquiry against the petitioner. On the same date, the Enquiry Officer issued a letter to the petitioner asking him to give his comments and present himself before the Enquiry Officer on 08.11.1994. Both letters the Management's letter of appointment addressed to the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer's notice addressed to the petitioner bear the date 31.10.1994 and were dispatched by registered post on the same day.

8. The petitioner received the letter dated 31.10.1994 from the Enquiry Officer only on 09.11.1994. Consequently, he could not appear on 08.11.1994. Vide his reply dated 11.11.1994, the petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to fix some other date and inform him in advance.

9. Thereafter, on 17.11.1994, the Enquiry Officer issued another letter to the petitioner directing him to appear on 24.11.1994. However, in this letter also, no specific time was mentioned and no venue of enquiry was pointed out.

10. On 24.11.1994, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted his reply denying all the charges as frivolous and baseless. Thereafter, as all