The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in employment disputes, including providing a reasonable opportunity to the employee to defend his actions and informing the employee of any proposed punishment.

JUDGMENT :

Girish Agnihotri, J.

1. The petitioner – Surinder Singh inter alia seeks quashing of the order dated 31.10.1998 and also the award dated 01.11.2012 (P1 & P2 respectively). Vide order dated 31.10.1998, the General Manager, P & A – respondent No.1 had ordered the dismissal of the services of the petitioner. Vide order dated 01.11.2012, reference No.373 of 1999 has been decided by the Industrial Tribunal by answering the award against the petitioner-workman.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner based upon the pleadings in the writ petition submits that the petitioner-workman had joined the respondent-management on 25.07.1978 as unskilled worker. Vide order dated 31.10.1998, services of the petitioner-workman were terminated/he was dismissed from service.

3. This Court for the reasons mentioned hereunder is inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner-workman and accordingly allow the writ petition.

4. The records of the case clearly show that there has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In the memo dated 01.09.1998, it had been mentioned that following are the charges against the workman :-

“You are in the habit of absenting yourself without any intimation, authority or sanction. During the period 10th Oct. 97 to July, 98, the following is your attendance record…”

5. In the charge memo, it has been alleged that from 10.10.1997 to July, 1998, the workman had allegedly absented himself for the days mentioned therein and in some cases half days and even few hours distributed in various months between October, 1997 to July, 1998. Thereafter vide memo dated 10.09.1998, the management ordered that the explanation dated 07.09.1998 in response to the charge-sheet dated 01.09.1998 has been found to be unsatisfactory and it was considered desirable and necessary to conduct an enquiry.

6. The Enquiry Officer Mr. RS Sehgal submitted his report on 24.10.1998 wherein he summarily concluded that that charges contained in the charge-sheet stands established. On 26.10.1998 a letter was issued whereby the petitioner was informed that the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report dated 24.10.1998 and that he may submit his representation on or before 29.10.1998. Thereafter vide order dated 31.10.1998, respondent No.1 passed the order dismissing the workman/petitioner from service.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

8. This Court finds that there are numerous violations in the conduct of the enquiry. This has the effect of denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner-workman to defend his case and also amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Firstly, in the charge-sheet, no documents or list of witnesses have been mentioned. Secondly, it has been vaguely pointed out in the charge-sheet that by remaining ‘habitually absent’ constitute gross misconduct under the Standing Order No.22. A perusal of the Standing Order No.22, however, shows that there is no sub-clause which provides for habitual absence to be gross misconduct within the meaning of Standing Order No.22. This Court, however, finds that ‘continuous absence’ has been provided in one of the clauses but there is no charge against the workman in specific alleging that he was continuously absent which amounted to gross misconduct. Thirdly, the management examined Mr.Vinod Malhotra as Management Witness as at no stage prior to the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner-workman was informed through any intimation regarding the list of witnesses to be examined by the management. It is apparent that the Enquiry Officer in its report has placed reliance on the oral averments of Mr. Vinod Malhotra to the effect that the petitioner-workman was advised verbally number of times not to remain absent. Fourthly, it has also been noticed that the Enquiry Officer has relied upon the management’s Exhibits 1, 2, 3 etc. but at no stage prior to the enquiry proceedings