Full Judgment Text
2022:DHC:2710-DB
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 18.07.2022.
% Judgment delivered on: 22.07.2022.
+ LPA 46/2022 and C.M. Nos.2970/2022 & 2972/2022
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Mr. N.K. Singh,
Ms. Tania Ahlawat, Ms. Palak
Rohmetra, Ms. Lavnya Kaushik &
Ms. Aliza Alam, Advocates.
versus
SH ASHOK KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. G.S. Charya, Advocate.
+ LPA 119/2022 and C.M. No.8083/2022
SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. G.S. Charya, Advocate.
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Mr. N.K. Singh,
Ms. Tania Ahlawat, Ms. Palak
Rohmetra, Ms. Lavnya Kaushik &
Ms. Aliza Alam, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
J U D G M E N T
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, C.J.
1. The present appeal is arising out of common judgment passed in
W.P.(C.) No. 6748/2003 in Shri Ashok Kumar Vs. D.T.C. & Ors. and in
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 1 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
W.P.(C.) No. 8186/2004 in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Ashok
Kumar.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent Ashok Kumar was an
employee serving in Delhi Transport Corporation (herein after referred as
DTC). He joined the services of the Corporation as Assistant Fitter (Daily
wages) in the year 1982, and was brought on monthly rates in the year 1983.
While he was serving on the post of Fitter, on 11.08.1991, he allegedly
entered into the Office of Forman under the influence of the Liquor and
assaulted one Sh. Ranjit Singh, Asst. Forman and abused him. He was
placed under suspension on 12.08.1991, and, thereafter, a chargesheet was
issued on 30.08.1991. As per the imputation of misconduct, he allegedly
forcibly got his attendance marked by Sh. L. N. Benket, Forman at 22.15
Hrs., and assaulted one Assistant Forman Sh. Ranjit Kumar, who was
present there.
3. A reply was filed by the employee in question, and, thereafter, not
being satisfied by the reply, Enquiry Officer was appointed by the
Competent Disciplinary Authority. The Enquiry Officer concluded the
enquiry and submitted a detailed report on 20.02.1992, and Disciplinary
Authority based upon the enquiry report on 12.03.1992, issued a show cause
notice, and, thereafter finally an order of removal was passed on 24.04.1992.
4. He was also remitted one month’s salary by Money Order in order to
ensure compliance of Section 33(2)(b) of the I. D. Act. The DTC also filed
an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act before the Industrial
Tribunal for approval of the action taken by the Corporation.
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 2 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
5. The Labour Court framed the issues in the matter on 11.09.1994, and
by an order dated 16.08.2002 decided the validity of the enquiry against the
employer on the ground that the Enquiry Officer was not produced by the
DTC. The Presiding Officer, thereafter, passed an order on 12.05.2002,
rejecting the application preferred by the employer preferred under Section
33(2)(b) of the I. D. Act.
6. The appellant, thereafter, preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C.) No.
8186/2004, being aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2003. An application
was preferred under Section 17B of the I.D. Act by the respondent in the
writ petition. The application was allowed and the appellant was directed to
comply with the provisions of Section 17B of the I. D. Act, and a total
amount of Rs. 13,93,408/- has been paid to the workman as wages under
Section 17B of the I.D. Act for the period till the matter has been decided by
the Learned Single Judge. It is noteworthy to mention that the workman
was removed from service on 12.03.1992, and an order was passed in his
favour by Labour Court on 02.05.2003. The Learned Single Judge has
granted a lumpsum compensation for the period from 1992 to 2003 to the
tune of Rs. 10 Lacs.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the DTC has vehemently argued before
this Court that in the present case, the employee in question has assaulted a
senior officer, and there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the
misconduct, and hence the order passed by the Labour Court and the order
passed by the Learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 3 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that on account
of alleged misconduct, which took place on 11.08.1991, a chargesheet was
issued to the Workman, and finally Disciplinary Authority passed an order
of removal on 24.04.1992.
9. The facts of the case also reveal that a month’s salary by Money
Order – as required under Section 33(2)(b) of the I. D. Act, was remitted to
the Workman, and the appellant DTC has filed an application under Section
33(2)(b) of the I. D. Act, before the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the
action taken by the Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the I. D. Act,
which is reproduced as under:
“The above named applicant begs to state as follow:-
1. That the applicant, D.T.C. is a body corporate created under
section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 read
with the Delhi Transport Law (Amendment) Act, 1971
having perpetual succession and a common seal and by
virtue of the provisions of the said Act can sue and be sued
in its own name.
2. That the opposite party was employed as a Asstt. Fitter with
the applicant, on 11.8.91 when he was on duty on bus No. _
of route No. x on checking by the checking staff, following
irregularities were found:
i. On 11.8.91 at about 22.15. hrs. under the influence of
liquor, he entered in foreman office, abused and bate
Shri
ii. Ranjit Singh, Asstt. Foreman who was sitting with the
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 4 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
iii. Result his hand and left ear were injured. Shri
Mohinder Singh, S/Havaldar taken out a quarter
bottle of wine from his pocket
iv. Which was half empty.
3. That on the basis of the report of Shri Ranjit Singh, Asst.
Foreman with its enclosures, the opposite party was served
with a B. No. 1888 Charge sheet vide No. K/AI (T)/CS-
53/91/807 dated 30.8.91 and the following charges were
levelled against him.
On 11.8.91at about 22.15 hrs. under influence of liquor,
he entered in Foreman who was sitting there with the result
his hand and left ear were injured. Shri Mohinder Singh, S/
Havaldar taken out a quarter bottle of wine from his pocket
which was half empty.
4. That irregularities of opposite party tentamount of
misconduct within the meaning of para 19(e), 19 (g) and
19(m) of the standing orders governing the conduct of
D.T.C. employees.
5. That an oral enquiry and detailed investigations were held
in this case. The opposite party was given full opportunity to
defend his case who the availed.
6. That the enquiry was conducted according to the rules and
at no stage and principle of Natural Justice was floated.
During the enquiry, statement of Shri Ashok Kumar were
recorded.
7. That the enquiry officer found all the charges levelled in the
charge-sheet proved against the opposite party and
forwarded the case to the D.M. KJD. Who was the punishing
authority.
8. That after careful consideration of the report of the Enquiry
Officer and the past record, the D.M. KJD. By virtue of the
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 5 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
powers delegated to him, issued show- cause memorandum
No. KJ Al (T)/CS-53/91/92/349 dated 12.3.92 directing the
employee to show-cause as to why he should not be
terminated / removed /dismissed from the services of the
Corporation.
9. That the opposite party submitted the reply vide his letter
dated 25.3.92 to the show cause notice which was
considered by D.M. KJD.
10.That the D.M. KJD. after fully considering the case has
decided for his termination/ removal from the services of the
Corporation.
11. Though the reference made in respect of which pendency is
alleged, is ultravires, the power of the Secretary, Labour
Delhi Admn. Delhi and the same is illegal, it may be useful
to mention that the order of reference has been challenged
in the High Court and the present application U/S 33(2) (b)
of I.d. Act, 1947 is being filed as a matter of abundant
Caution and without prejudice to the right of the applicant
in the Civil Writ Petition.
12.That the Management has issued termination/ removal/
dismissal order dated 24.4.92 and has also remitted one
months wage by M.O. No. 4735 dated 24.4.92 as required
u/s. 33(2) (b) of the I.D. Act simultaneously.
13.That the Management relies on the proceedings of the
enquiry and other ansillary documents. It is requested that
the validity of the domestic enquiry be considered as a
preliminary issue and permission to adduce evidence and
prove charges before the Ind. Tribunal be granted in case
the decision of the preliminary issue is against the
Management.
It is prayed that the Industrial Tribunal may be pleased to
approve the action taken, namely termination/
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 6 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
removal/dismissal of the opposite party from the service of
the Corporation.
For
Delhi Transport Corporation.
Secretary D.T.C. Board Delhi
Transport Corporation
(A Government of India Undertaking)
Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi-
110002
New Delhi
Dated: 24.4.92
VRIFICATION:
I, P.Dutt. Secretary, Delhi Transport Corporation
Board do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to
12 of the application are true as per knowledge derived from
records. Para 13 contains legal submission prayer.
Verified on this day 24.4.1992 at Delhi.
Secretary D.T.C. Board
Delhi Transport Corporation
(A Government of India
Undertaking)
Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi-110002
New Delhi
Dated: 24.4.92”
10. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal has framed the issue in
respect of the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I. D. Act, and the
same is reproduced as under :
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 7 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
“ Whether the applicant held a legal and valid enquiry against
the respondent according to principles of natural justice? ”
11. On 16.08.2002, the Enquiry Officer has held the enquiry to be
vitiated, and the order passed by the Enquiry Officer dated 16.08.2002 is
reproduced as under:
“ 3. On the basis of pleading following preliminary issue was
framed on 11.1.94: “Whether the applicant held a legal and
valid enquiry against the respondent according to principles of
natural justice?”
4. To prove the allegations the applicant produced AW-1 Sh.
Suresh Chand who filed his affidavit Ex. AW1/A and referred
the documents Ex. AW1/1 to Ex. AW1/3. In his affidavit he
deposed that he had been working as Junior Clerk (Typist) with
Sh. Mohd. Irfan, enquiry officer and he happened to be present
during the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry proceedings
started on 22.1.91 in pursuance of the charge sheet dated
30.8.91, Ex. AW1/1 and due opportunity was given to the
respondent and the proceedings are Ex. AW1/2 and the finding
is Ex. AW1/3. He came into the witness box as secondary
evidence as Sh. Mohd. Irfan, enquiry officer has left/resigned
the services and whereabout are not known. He was cross
examined. During the cross examination he admitted that he
could not say about the charges on which basis the proceeding
were initiated and he can identify the signatures only. He could
not say how long the proceedings continued.
5. On the other hand the respondent entered into the witness
box as RW-1 and filed his affidavit Ex. RW1/A in which he
deposed that enquiry conducted was against the principle of
natural justice. He was not given any opportunity to defend his
case or to cross examine the witnesses.
6. In the nut-shell the applicant did not have the enquiry officer
to prove the enquiry proceedings. The witness produced by
applicant AW-1 Shri Suresh Chand has just proved the
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 8 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
signatures on the enquiry proceedings which vitiated the
enquiry proceedings. Consequently, the enquiry proceeding are
hereby held to be vitiated and the issue is decided against the
applicant. ”
12. Learned counsel for the DTC has vehemently argued before this Court
that merely because the Enquiry Officer was not produced before the
Industrial Tribunal, by no stretch of imagination, the Tribunal could have
arrived at a finding that the Enquiry Officer proceedings stood vitiated.
13. Learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid issue, and rightly
arrived at a conclusion that non-production of Enquiry Officer cannot render
the enquiry non-est, and in those circumstances the order dated 16.08.2002
was set aside.
14. Industrial Tribunal in O. P. 168/1992 has framed three issues, which
are as under:
“ 1) Whether the respondent committed the mis-conduct as alleged
against him?
2) Whether the petitioner remitted full one month‟s wage to him as
per provision of Section 33(2)(b) of the I. D. Act?
3) Relief. ”
15. The Labour Court vide order dated 02.05.2003 decided the first issue
against the DTC, and the approval sought by the DTC was rejected,
dismissing the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act.
16. The Labour Court on 02.05.2003 has passed the following order:
“ ORDER
1. The applicant has filed this application under Section
33 (2) (b) of I.D. Act for approval of its action to remove the
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 9 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
respondent from service. The brief facts of the case are that
on the basis of report of Shri Ranjit Singh, Asstt. Foreman, a
charge sheet dated 30.8.91 was issued to the resp-ondent.
The charges levelled against the respondent are that on
11.8.91 „at about‟ 22.15 hours, he under the influence or
liquor entered into the office of Foreman and abused and
beat Shri Rainit Singh, Asstt. Foreman. Due to beating he
sustained injuries in his hand and left ear. Thereafter Shri
Mohinder Singh S/Havaldar took but a quarter bottle of wine
from his pocket which was half empty. The irregularities of
respondent amount to misconduct within the mean-ing of
para 19 (a), (g) & (m) of the standing orders governing the
conduct of DTC employees. The disci-plinary authority
removed the respondent from ser- vice vide order dated
24.4.92 and remitted full one month's wage to him by way of
money order.
2. Respondent has filed the reply to the approval
application of the applicant in which he denied the
allegations levelled against him.
3. Following preliminary issue was framed on 11.1.94:
"Whether the applicant held a legal and valid enquiry
against the respondent acc-ording to principles of
natural justice?"
4. Vide order dated 16.8.2002, the issue of validity of
enquiry was decided against the applicant. On the basis of
pleading of parties, following issues were framed:
1) Whether the respondent committed the mis-
conduct as alleged against him?
2) Whether the petitioner remitted full one
month's wage to him as per provision of
Section 33 (2) (b) of I.D. Act?
3) Relief.
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 10 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
5. To prove its case, applicant produced AW2 Shri V.K.
Palta and respondent did not led any evidence. I have heard
the arguments and my issue-wise finding is as under.
6. ISSUE N0.1
This issue is with regard to commission of misconduct
by the respondent and onus to prove the issue is on the
applicant. But applicant did not produce any evidence to
prove the alleged misconduct of respondent. Consequently, It
is held that the applicant has failed to prove the alleged
miscon-duct against the respondent. Consequently, the issue
is decided against the applicant.
7. ISSUE NO.2
AW-2 Shri V.K. Palta entered into the witness box and
filed his affidavit dated 4.12.02 in which he deposed that
alongwith the removal letter one month salary of Rs,1719/-
was sent to the workman by money order. He deposed that
one month salary as per salary certificate was sent to the
workman and he proved the documents as Ex.AW2/2 to
EX.AW2/4. The respondent did not led any evidence in
rebuttal to the same, Consequently, the issue is decided in
favour of applicant.
8. ISSUE NO.3
Keeping in view the finding on Issue No.1, the
approval sought by applicant is rejected and application
under Section 33 (2) (b) of I.D. Act is hereby dismissed. File
be consigned to record room.
-SD-
(P. S. TEJI)
P.O. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
Dated: 02.05.2003 KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI”
17. It is true that the Labour Court has framed the issues in the matter and
did grant an opportunity to the appellant employer to prove the misconduct
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 11 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
of the Workman, however, except producing one witness PW-2, L. N.
Venkat, no other witness was produced before the Labour Court to establish
the misconduct of the employee, and, therefore, the Learned Single Judge
has disposed of the petition preferred by the employer DTC as well as the
Workman, by granting a lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 Lacs
to the Workman for the period he was out of the job.
18. It is a well settled position of law that appreciation of evidence is not
permissible to be done by the High Court to arrive at a particular finding in a
Departmental Enquiry. However, the enquiry report can be interfered with,
in case, the findings are perverse. In the present case, the Learned Single
Judge has carefully considered the evidence on record adduced during the
Departmental Enquiry, and the relevant paragraphs i.e. Paragraph 11 to
Paragraph 19, of the judgment read as under:
“11. In so far as evidence in the enquiry proceedings is
concerned, a perusal of the evidence on record shows that the
allegations were made by one Sh. Ranjit Singh, Assistant
Foreman against the Workman. The said allegations were four
in number and to the following effect:
“On 11.8.91 your duty was in the depot work shop
between 21:00 hrs to 5:30 hrs during which you
committed following irregularities:
1. You forcibly got your attendance marked by Sh.
L.N. Benket foreman at 22.15 O‟clock in drunken
position and told to the assistant foreman Sh.
Ranjeet Singh sitting there that if you give
evidence against me, I will teach you a lesson
outside the depot.
2. You held him by his neck and abused him.
3. In the presence of body fitter Sh. Vijay Kumar,
you beat the assistant foreman in the body section
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 12 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
due to which, he received injury in his hand and at
the left ear.
4. Security Hawaldar Sh. Mahendra Singh took at
one Paua (liquor) from your pocket, which was
half empty. By doing so, you have misbehaved with
higher officer and violated the rules and has
breached the discipline.”
12. In respect of the above allegations, witnesses had
deposed before the enquiry officer. Mr. Ranjit Singh, who is the
Complainant himself deposed, and was also cross-examined.
13. In terms of the independent witnesses, Sh. L. N. Venkat,
Foreman, who was the eye witness was examined. One Sh. Ran
Singh, the Assistant Foreman was also cross-examined. A
perusal of their evidence shows that though Sh. Ranjit Singh
had made various allegations including of physical
manhandling and abuse, the other witnesses including the
Foreman did not confirm any of these allegations. The only
confirmation is of the occurrence of the incident, the words
used by the Foreman are “ आपस में बातचीत हुई कुछ वारदात
हुई ”. The relevant extract is as under:
“State of Sh. L.N.Venkat foreman Batch No. 9082.
On 11.8.91 my duty was in the night from 21.00
O‟clock to 5.30 O‟ clock. In the evening after
marking the attendance of assistant fitter Ashok
Kuma, I marked his duty with fitter Manwal Lal.
After sometime, there was some talk between Asst.
Fitter Ashok Lal and Assistant foreman Ranjeet
Singh and there was hot verbal arguments between
both regarding same enquiry. After that we
pacified both of them they went for there respective
work. Around 23.30 O‟ clock some quarrel took
place between assistant fitter Ashok Kumar and
assistant foreman Ranjit Singh, Sh. Ranjit Singh
called security guard Sh. Mahendra Singh.
Thereafter, also reached to body section and again
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 13 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
pacified both of them. After sometime around
00.30 one bus which was in break down condition
standing in the line Ashok Kumar was send to
attend the same. Thereafter they went in the
morning and Sh. Ranjeet Singh was doing his duty
in the morning, there was also some hot discussion
between them thereafter, Assistant Foreman Sh.
Ranjeet Singh gave report of the incident. I have
nothing to say more.”
14. Therefore, the Foreman confirms that there was some
incident/dispute/tussle between the parties. Mr Ran Singh in his
statement also does not confirm the allegation. His statement is
extracted below:
“Statement of Sh. Ran Singh assistant foreman
T.No.9101.
On 11.8.91 my duty was in night shift in the
depot work shop. After marking the attendance
there was some verbal altercation between Ashok
Kumar and Ranjeet Singh. I told to Ashok Kumar
to cool down. After sometime I came to know that
Ashok Kumer went to Sh. Ranjeet Singh and told
him something. Sh. Ranjeet Singh called the duty
officer and the security guard who forbid him not
to do so. Thereafter Ashok Kumar and Ranjeet
Singh started doing their work. After some time,
one report came for which Ashok Kumar ana I
went to attend and after that I went my house after
finishing my duty. Later they had another enquiry
to attend. I do not know what was the matter
between Ranjeet Singh and him. I have nothing to
say more.
Question ask by enquiry officer.
Q. Can you tell where were you at about 22.15 on
11.8.91 in the depot.
Ans. In the office of foramen.
Q. Can you tell about that Sh. Ashok Kumar
(Assistant fitter) being drunk coming in foramen
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 14 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
office and giving threat to Sh. Ranjeet Singh
regarding giving evidence.
Ans. I do not know about Ashok Kumar being
drunk but be gave threatening therefore quarrel
took place.
Q. Whether assistant fitter Sh. Ashok Kumar
abused him.
Ans. No.
Q. Can you tell that you recovered a wine bottle
from the pocket of Sh. Ashok Kumar which was
half empty.
Ans. No.”
15. Sh. Ran Singh also denies that there was any verbal abuse
by Mr Ashok Kumar and denied any knowledge of whether the
Workman was in an inebriated state or not, although he does
state that there was some threat given by the Workman which
led to the dispute.
16. Sh. Mahendra Singh, the Security Constable, also stated
that when he reached the place, there was no dispute and
nobody affirmed to him that there was any dispute.
“On this occasion difference witness Sh.
Mahendra Singh security Hawaldar B.No.450 is
asked to give his statement.
Statement of Mahendra Singh security hawaldar
B.No. 450.
On 11.8.91 my duty was in night shift when I
reached to the place of incident I did not find any
quarrel there I collected all the people there and
enquired from them but no one told about the
quarrel after sometime foreman sent me outside to
attend a breakdown case. I have to not to say
anything.”
17. Thus, it is not clear from the evidence on record that the
allegations were correct. Insofar as the evidence of Sh. Ran
Singh is concerned, he also confirmed that there was a
„dhamki‟ which was given and a „jhagda‟ which happened. This
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 15 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
is the best evidence which has emerged even from the enquiry
report. Thus, the allegations which were raised against the
Workman have not been fully established.
18. Even the enquiry report itself holds that out of the
allegations which was made, the first two were partially
proved, and one was fully proved. Therefore, as per the
evidence which has emerged from the enquiry report, there is
no independent corroboration of the fact that the Workman was
also under the influence of liquor. Under such circumstances,
the question would be as to whether the award is sustainable.
19. In view of the above evidence, even after taking into
consideration the Enquiry Report, the conclusions in the
enquiry report that the allegations were proved are not tenable.
The impugned award dismissing the application under Section
33(2)(b) is therefore been held to be correct but on different
grounds i.e. no proof of the allegations levelled. By virtue of
th
this finding, the removal order dated 24 April, 1992 is also
liable to be quashed.”
19. The exercise undertaken by the Learned Single Judge in appreciating
the evidence certainly makes it very clear that not a single independent
witness before the Enquiry Officer has stated about the alleged assault, and,
even there was a denial by the witnesses in respect of the verbal abuse by the
employee. The Learned Single Judge has held the findings arrived at by the
Enquiry Officer to be perverse findings.
20. Other important aspect of the case is the Workman – during the
pendency of the petitions before this Court, has attained the age of
superannuation, and, in those circumstances, instead of directing
reinstatement, for the period within 1992-2003 (in total 11 years) – as
nothing was paid to the Workman, Learned Single Judge has granted a
lumpsum of Rs. 10 Lacs to the Workman.
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 16 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
21. Keeping in view the judgements delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Allahabad Bank and Ors. v. Krishan Pal Singh,
th
(SLP(C) No. 19648/2019, decided on 20 September 2021) , Ranbir Singh
v. Executive Eng. P. W. D., (Civil Appeal No. 4483/2010 , decided on
September 2, 2021), and followed by this Court in M/s Hindustan
Antibiotics Ltd. v. BN Singh (W.P.(C) 8297/2016 and CM APPL. 867/2020,
th
decided on 28 October, 2021) , in the considered opinion of this Court, the
Management was certainly granted an opportunity by the Labour Court to
prove the misconduct, and the Management has miserably failed to prove
the misconduct before the Labour Court by producing witnesses. The
Learned Single Judge has minutely scanned the entire evidence on record in
order to arrive at a finding in the matter, and, therefore, as findings arrived at
by the Enquiry Officer were preserve findings, and the employee has already
attained the superannuation, the learned Single Judge was justified in
granting a lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 Lacs for the period,
the employee was out of service i.e. within 1992-2003.
22. The learned Single – as the Workman has already superannuated, has
also directed the employer to grant him Provident Fund and Gratuity, and
therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgement
passed by the Learned Single Judge in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case.
23. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
24. The other connected appeal preferred by the Workman i.e. LPA
119/2022, also stands dismissed.
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 17 of 18
2022:DHC:2710-DB
25. However, it is made clear that, in case, at the relevant point of time,
the Workman was holding pensionable post, he shall also be entitled to the
pension and other dues.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD)
JUDGE
JULY 22, 2022
aks
LPA 46/2022 & 119/2022 Page 18 of 18