When a Labour Court justifies a termination order based on its own appraisal of evidence, the dismissal relates back to the original date of termination, and the employee is not entitled to back wages until the date of the award.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

(ORAL)

1. This intra Court appeal lays a challenge to the order dated 02.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition was dismissed. The challenge in this appeal is primarily to an award made by the Labour Court-01, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No.489/1992, whereby the Labour Court answered against the appellant with respect to his termination.

2. The facts as noted are that the appellant was terminated on 27.09.1988, on the purported ground of misconduct. The case of the appellant before the Labour Court was that the termination is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. The learned Single Judge noted that the respondent/management established the charge against the appellant before the Labour Court and the witnesses produced by the respondent/management were cross-examined on behalf of the appellant. The learned Single Judge also noted that the Labour Court after analyzing the evidence concluded that the alleged misconduct was that the appellant has not obeyed the directions given by the respondent/management to collect the payment from customers of the respondent, which was part of his duty. On the basis of the evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the charge against the appellant is proved, which resulted in an award whereby the Labour Court had answered in favour of the respondent/management.

4. In the writ petition various submissions were advanced including the violation of principles of natural justice, the penalty being disproportionate and that, even if the management had proved the charge before the Labour Court, the appellant shall be entitled to the back wages from the date of termination till the date of award.

5. The learned Single Judge answered all the submissions made on behalf of the appellant in the impugned order, in the following manner:-

“19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the impugned award, the record, and the respective submissions, I am of the view that there is no merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. I have set out hereinabove the submissions made by both counsel with regard to the evidence brought on record by the parties, on the basis of which the finding of guilt has been returned against the petitioner by the Industrial Tribunal. The purpose of extracting the relevant part of the evidence of the management and the respective submissions of the parties is to demonstrate that the present is not a case of “no evidence”. It is also not a case where the finding of guilt can be said to be contrary to the evidence brought on record. Though the management’s witnesses may not have substantiated the allegations beyond those which are contained in the termination order, so far as the allegations contained in the termination order are concerned, they stand substantiated and proved on the basis of the evidence of the parties. I may set out herein below the discussion in the impugned Award – analyzing the evidence led by the parties, on the basis of which the learned Industrial Adjudicator has arrived at the find of guilt against the Petitioner. The same reads as follows:

“8. The main witness of the management Shri H.P.Lakhotia deposed in support of the charges in his affidavit Ex.MW2/A that on 27.09.88, the claimant committed indiscipline by not complying with his order/instructions as refused to collect the deposits from Bahadurgarh which was a part of his duty being done in routine within and outside Delhi i.e. collection of deposits and other payments on behalf/account of the company. The witness also p