Harish Kumar Chaudhry vs M/S Ajudhia Textile Mills

$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
% Date of Decision: 31 August, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010730322006
+ W.P.(C) 4436/2006 & CM APPL. 51123/2026
HARISH KUMAR CHAUDHRY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Anjali
Bansal, Mr. Pradeep Kumar,
Ms. Kritika Matta and Ms.
Tanya Rose, Advs.
versus
M/S AJUDHIA TEXTILE MILLS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Achal Gupta, Mr. Widaphi
L. and Ms. Nidhi Jain, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the award
dated 22.03.2005 passed in ID No. 238/1997, whereby the learned
Industrial Tribunal found the petitioner workman guilty of misconduct
and declined to interfere with the punishment of termination.
2. Briefly stated, it was the case of the petitioner workman that he
had worked with the respondent for 18 years as a junior clerk. The
petitioner was suspended with effect from 06.03.1993 and a
chargesheet was issued to him on 12.03.1993 alleging misconduct.
The allegations have been aptly summarised in the impugned order as
under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:41:08
W.P.(C) 4436/2006 Page 1 of 5

“i) Habitual in leaving the work place during duty hours without
permission in the inside and outside the mills permission in the
inside and outside the mills premises and indulgence in the
activities of inciting the workers against the management to create
industrial unrest in the mills.
ii) He also created industrial unrest in the mills by pa-sting notice
dated 1.3.93 for provoking the workers.
iii) On 20.2.93 got stopped the working the departments of the
mills and gheraoed the officers of the mills alongwith the workers
of the mills by provocating the workers against the management.
iv) Misbehaviour and use of abusive language with the factory
Manager on 27.2.93.”
3. The petitioner was found to be guilty of misconduct in the
enquiry proceedings, whereafter, on 05.07.1994, the services of the
petitioner were dismissed.
4. The enquiry proceedings were found to be unfair by the learned
Tribunal by order dated 20.04.2001, pursuant to which, evidence was
led by the parties on the issue of whether misconduct was made out.
After appraising the evidence led by the parties, by the impugned
award, the learned Tribunal found that the misconduct alleged against
the petitioner was proved and upheld the punishment of termination of
his services.
5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was the
General Secretary of M/s. Ajudha Kapra Mill Staff Karamchari
Sanghathan (Regd.) and he was also the office bearer in many other
Unions due to which he was unjustly targeted by the management as is
evidenced from the fact that action was only pursued against the
petitioner. It is submitted that the management examined the same
witnesses before the Tribunal who had also been examined in the
enquiry proceedings, and the learned Tribunal erroneously relied on
the evidence of the said witnesses to hold that misconduct was proved
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:41:08
W.P.(C) 4436/2006 Page 2 of 5

even after the enquiry proceedings had been held to be perverse. It is
further submitted that there is no other evidence against the petitioner.
It is also contended that the respondent management did not preserve
the right to lead evidence to prove charges in its written statement and
thus no evidence could have been led by the respondent before the
learned Tribunal.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
management submitted that the learned Tribunal had aptly appreciated
the material on record and the impugned award suffers from no
infirmity.
7. Having perused the record and heard the counsel, this Court is
of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly found that
misconduct is proved against the petitioner.
8. Pertinently, before delving into the merits of the case, it is
necessary to note that the enquiry was held to be perverse after noting
that the documents were not supplied to the petitioner and certain
documents given by the petitioner were not relied. It was also noted
that a police report was made against the second enquiry officer on
allegations of misbehaviour and misconduct as well as for snatching
record of the petitioner, despite which he was not changed. In addition
to the same, certain other procedural lapses were found which led the
learned Tribunal to find that the enquiry officer had unfairly assisted
the management witnesses. Further, it was found that statement of five
out of six management witnesses could not be considered as no proper
opportunity to cross-examine them was given to the petitioner. Thus,
it is clear that it was the violation of principles of natural justice that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:41:08
W.P.(C) 4436/2006 Page 3 of 5

led to the enquiry report being deemed perverse.
9. Though it is rightly pointed out that the management witnesses
in the enquiry proceedings were also examined before the learned
Tribunal, this Court is unable to accept the argument that the evidence
of the same witnesses could not be considered. As noted above, the
primary reason for not considering the evidence of the said witnesses
was that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to cross-
examine them. In such circumstances, once a proper opportunity to
cross-examine the said witnesses was granted, nothing precluded the
Tribunal from appreciating the statements of the said witnesses, which
included Sh. B.V. Rao who specifically deposed that he had seen the
petitioner coaxing and insisting workmen to stop work and that the
petitioner had also gheraoed officers. The learned Tribunal was also
rightly weighed by the fact that the petitioner had not challenged the
authenticity of the register which reflected frequent in and out entries
of the petitioner. No argument is made before this Court in respect of
any infirmity or inconsistency in evidence of the witnesses, and this
Court can even otherwise not reappreciate evidence in exercise of writ
jurisdiction.
10. Even though it is contested that the learned Tribunal erred in
allowing the management to lead evidence to prove misconduct,
considering that due opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross-
examine the witnesses, no prejudice can be said to have been caused
to the petitioner by virtue of the same.
11. Though it is also argued that the petitioner was unfairly
targeted, the assertions of victimisation are vague and general, which
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:41:08
W.P.(C) 4436/2006 Page 4 of 5

do not inspire confidence. Merely because other workers were not
charge sheeted, the proved misconduct on part of the petitioner cannot
be ignored.
12. Having found that misconduct of the petitioner stands proved, it
is not permissible for this Court to interfere with the punishment
imposed on the workman on account of his conduct merely on account
of any sympathetic considerations.
13. It is well settled that while exercising powers under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, this Court ought not to act as an appellate
Court. This Court therefore cannot substitute its own view for the
view taken by the Labour Court unless the same is shown to be
arbitrary or perverse.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no such
perversity has been pointed out to warrant exercise of jurisdiction by
this Court.
15. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending
application stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
AUGUST 31, 2026
‘KDK’
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:41:08
W.P.(C) 4436/2006 Page 5 of 5