Full Judgment Text
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 11 July, 2012
+ W.P.(C) No.819/1998
PURAN CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
[
Versus
THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIA INTERNATIONAL
CENTRE ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
th
1. The petition impugns the award dated 20 November, 1996 of the
Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:-
“Whether the dismissal of Sh. Pooran Chand from
service is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief
is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this
respect”.
and holding the punishment awarded by the respondent employer to
be neither harsh nor disproportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct
committed by the petitioner workman and holding the petitioner workman to
be not entitled to any relief. Notice of this petition was issued. After service
th
of the respondent employer, Rule was issued on 20 December, 1999. The
petitioner workman died during the pendency of the petition and his legal
nd
heirs were substituted vide order dated 22 March, 2010. It is also worth
mentioning that attempts made from time to time for amicable settlement
failed. None has been appearing for either of the parties for the last several
rd th nd th
dates on 23 August, 2011, 15 December, 2011, 2 January, 2012, 20
W.P.(C) No.819/1998 Page 1 of 3
nd
March, 2012 and 2 July, 2012. Today also none has appeared inspite of the
matter having been kept pending for sufficiently long time. It is not deemed
expedient to await the parties/counsels any further.
2. Though in the position aforesaid, the petition is liable to be dismissed
for non-prosecution but Rule having been issued, the records have been gone
through.
st
3. The Industrial Adjudicator in the order dated 31 January, 1986 and in
the award has found/observed/held:-
a. that the petitioner workman was in service of the respondent
employer since 1962;
th
b. that his services were terminated w.e.f. 26 May, 1980 after
holding domestic inquiry;
c. that the petitioner workman had not been able to substantiate
his pleas that he was not given sufficient opportunity to cross
examine the witnesses during the inquiry or that the inquiry was
otherwise bad;
d. that the petitioner workman was given sufficient opportunity to
reply to the charge sheet, he was present when the witnesses
were examined; he was given sufficient and adequate
opportunity to cross examine the witnesses but had not availed
of the same;
e. that the petitioner workman had also been unable to show that
he was in any manner prejudiced from non-cross examination
of the said witnesses;
W.P.(C) No.819/1998 Page 2 of 3
f. that the inquiry proceedings were recorded in the language
known to the petitioner workman and the petitioner workman
had signed all the proceedings sheets;
g. that no case of the respondent employer having victimized the
petitioner workman or having indulged in any unfair labour
practice was also made out;
h. that the misconduct of which the petitioner workman had been
found guilty, of gheraoing the Manager of the respondent
employer and threatening him till he revoked the suspension of
another employee and of inciting the other workers and leading
them and of using violent, abusive and derogatory language
was grave enough to justify the punishment of dismissal.
4. Considering (i) that the dismissal of the petitioner workman was
nearly 32 years ago; (ii) the petitioner workman is now no more; and, (iii)
the findings of the Industrial Adjudicator which are challenged in this writ
petition are factual in nature and no case of the same being perverse is made
out, this is even otherwise not a case calling for interference in exercise of
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is therefore
dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
JULY 11, 2012
pp..
W.P.(C) No.819/1998 Page 3 of 3
th
% Date of decision: 11 July, 2012
+ W.P.(C) No.819/1998
PURAN CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
[
Versus
THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIA INTERNATIONAL
CENTRE ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
th
1. The petition impugns the award dated 20 November, 1996 of the
Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:-
“Whether the dismissal of Sh. Pooran Chand from
service is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief
is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this
respect”.
and holding the punishment awarded by the respondent employer to
be neither harsh nor disproportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct
committed by the petitioner workman and holding the petitioner workman to
be not entitled to any relief. Notice of this petition was issued. After service
th
of the respondent employer, Rule was issued on 20 December, 1999. The
petitioner workman died during the pendency of the petition and his legal
nd
heirs were substituted vide order dated 22 March, 2010. It is also worth
mentioning that attempts made from time to time for amicable settlement
failed. None has been appearing for either of the parties for the last several
rd th nd th
dates on 23 August, 2011, 15 December, 2011, 2 January, 2012, 20
W.P.(C) No.819/1998 Page 1 of 3
nd
March, 2012 and 2 July, 2012. Today also none has appeared inspite of the
matter having been kept pending for sufficiently long time. It is not deemed
expedient to await the parties/counsels any further.
2. Though in the position aforesaid, the petition is liable to be dismissed
for non-prosecution but Rule having been issued, the records have been gone
through.
st
3. The Industrial Adjudicator in the order dated 31 January, 1986 and in
the award has found/observed/held:-
a. that the petitioner workman was in service of the respondent
employer since 1962;
th
b. that his services were terminated w.e.f. 26 May, 1980 after
holding domestic inquiry;
c. that the petitioner workman had not been able to substantiate
his pleas that he was not given sufficient opportunity to cross
examine the witnesses during the inquiry or that the inquiry was
otherwise bad;
d. that the petitioner workman was given sufficient opportunity to
reply to the charge sheet, he was present when the witnesses
were examined; he was given sufficient and adequate
opportunity to cross examine the witnesses but had not availed
of the same;
e. that the petitioner workman had also been unable to show that
he was in any manner prejudiced from non-cross examination
of the said witnesses;
W.P.(C) No.819/1998 Page 2 of 3
f. that the inquiry proceedings were recorded in the language
known to the petitioner workman and the petitioner workman
had signed all the proceedings sheets;
g. that no case of the respondent employer having victimized the
petitioner workman or having indulged in any unfair labour
practice was also made out;
h. that the misconduct of which the petitioner workman had been
found guilty, of gheraoing the Manager of the respondent
employer and threatening him till he revoked the suspension of
another employee and of inciting the other workers and leading
them and of using violent, abusive and derogatory language
was grave enough to justify the punishment of dismissal.
4. Considering (i) that the dismissal of the petitioner workman was
nearly 32 years ago; (ii) the petitioner workman is now no more; and, (iii)
the findings of the Industrial Adjudicator which are challenged in this writ
petition are factual in nature and no case of the same being perverse is made
out, this is even otherwise not a case calling for interference in exercise of
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is therefore
dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
JULY 11, 2012
pp..
W.P.(C) No.819/1998 Page 3 of 3