HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1400 of 2022

26 June, 2025 Managing Director G M V N Ltd.

& another … Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court Dehradun & another … Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Ms. Abhilasha Tomar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

1. This is employer’s petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the award dated 17.02.2022 rendered by learned Labour Court, Dehradun in Adjudication Case No. 24 of 2012. By the said award, termination of service of respondent no. 2 was declared to be unjust and illegal and it was provided that the workman shall be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages at the rate of 5 percent of his monthly salary from the date of raising the dispute till the date of his reinstatement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no. 2 was appointed as Production Supervisor in Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam, therefore, learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute raised by respondent no. 2, who was not a workman. It is further contended that the work and conduct of respondent no. 2 was far from satisfactory and due to the misconduct committed by him, domestic enquiry was initiated against him by issuing a charge sheet; since he did not participate in the enquiry, therefore, after issuing show cause notice on 08.04.1999, his services were terminated vide order dated 01.07.1999. Thus, she submits that interference made by learned Labour Court in the matter is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Per contra, Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 submits that although the designation given to petitioner was Supervisor, however, he had no supervisory powers and he was simply discharging clerical functions, such as, making challan, maintaining record of the production in the factory, preparing challan for transporting the goods out of the factory, etc. He further submits that charge sheet was not served upon respondent no. 2 nor his reply was ever sought regarding the charges, and the show cause notice was also not served upon him. He further submits that one Sri Rajesh Naithani appears to have been appointed as enquiry officer, but no intimation regarding the enquiry was sent to respondent no. 2, therefore, he was not aware about pendency of any enquiry and the enquiry, if any, was held in absolute violation of principles of natural justice and his services were terminated, without issuing show cause notice, on

01.07.1999.

4. Based on the pleadings made by the parties, the following three points for determination were formulated by learned Labour Court:-

(i) Whether the domestic inquiry proceedings were conducted by the OP in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice? If no, then effect?

(ii) Whether the termination of service of workman Chintamani Sharma by the Ops w.e.f. 01.07.1999 is proper and/or legal? If no, then effect?

(iii) The workman is entitled to what benefit/relief?

5. Respondent no. 2 appeared as witness and filed his affidavit. One Sri K.N. Nautiyal, Assistant General Manager, Tourism, GMVN was examined as employer witness.

6. On the first issue, learned Labour Court held that domestic enquiry was held in violation of principles of natural justice and respondent no. 2 was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Issue nos. 2 & 3 were also decided in favour of respondent no. 2 by holding that as the domestic enquiry was held without granting opportunity to defend himself to respondent no. 2, therefore, the termination order passed, on the strength of such domestic enquiry, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel for resp