Delhi District Court
Between The vs The on 29 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMARII, PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0248522003
ID No. 394/03 (old), 705/14 (new)
Date of institution 31.10.2003
Date of receiving of present case by way of 30.07.2014
transfer
Date of order 29.09.2014
BETWEEN THE WORKMAN
Sh. Avinash Chaudhary, S/o Late Sh. P.K. Chaudhary, C/o Inderjeet & Co., M14,
Dewan House Complex, Ajay Enclave, Near Ajanta Cinema, New Delhi110018.
AND
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/s. Cambata Aviation (P) Limited, IGI Airport, TerminalII, Line Maintenance
BlockA, New Delhi.
ORDER
1 By this order I shall dispose of the preliminary issue (issue no.2) i.e. as to "whether management conducted fair, legal and according to the principles of natural justice enquiry".
2 Before disposing of the enquiry issue, it is necessary to mention that the workman filed his statement of claim in terms of reference received from Secretary (Labour), Govt. of NCT of Delhi dt. 15.07.06 to adjudicate as to whether Sh. Avinash Chaudhary, S/o Late Sh. P.K. Chaudhary has been dismissed from the services illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief alongwith consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt. Notifications and what relief is he entitled and what 1 directions are necessary in this respect. The workman in statement of claim stated that he was working with the abovesaid management on the post of Supervisor under the supervision of the said management and he was provided an identity card and appointment letter by the management. It is further stated that for the last about six months from the termination of employment the workman had been demanding from management the statutory benefits and other legal facilitate from the management from time to time and he was also taking active part against some of arbitrary decisions of the management in respect of the working hours and also taking active part in encouraging the other employees for pressing their demands. It is further stated that during the course of employment the workman never gave any chance of any complaint whatsoever to the management and he had been discharging his duties as per the directions of his superiors and management. It is further stated that the workman has been demanding from the management some of his legal benefits and pressing the demand from management for proper working hours and prior information for the same, whereupon the management got annoyed and started making conspiracy for the termination of service of workman and vide chargesheet no. CAPL/PER/963/2002 dated 15.04.2002 the management leveled certain false charges of unauthorized absence against the workman with malafide intention of terminating his services by hook and crook and during the course of enquiry the workman had brought to the notice of enquiry officer his all proof of innocence but the enquiry officer was biased and even the application of the workman dt. 18.08.02 for seeking legal assistance and change of place of enquiry was rejected in an arbitrary manner. It is further stated that the enquiry officer was under the defacto control of the management and he did not brought on record the true facts and documentary evidence to the record despite various request of the workman. It is further stated that the enquiry officer was a practicing advocate and management was represented through qualified persons/staff and the 2 enquiry officer had not allowed to the workman to defend his case on merits and the entire enquiry proceedings were against the principles of natural justice and equity and the findings of enquiry officer were contrary to the facts and lack of material evidence. It is further stated that the reason of absent on the alleged date was explained alongwith documentary evidence by the workman and accordingly the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse, bad in law and against the procedure of departmental enquiry. It is further stated that the witnesses produced by the management were influenced by the management and even the enquiry officer was not the independent person. It is further stated that during the course of enquiry the workman had brought to the notice of the enquiry officer his all proof of innocence but the enquiry officer was biased and did not consider the evidence relating to ill health of the workman and his mother. It is further stated that the enquiry officer has bypassed the documentary evidence produced by the workman as a proof of his valid reason for his absent and the medical certificates of the mother and workman himself clearly indicates the acute and emergency occasion for taking leave. It is further stated that the findings of the enquiry officer are therefore contrary to the facts and circumstances and material placed on record and were predetermined and the initiating the procedure adopted by the management to initiate inquiry against the workman was merely a formality and paper work. It is further stated that the enquiry officer is a gainfully employed person and enquiry initiated by him cannot be presumed to be impartial and the dismissal of the workman is on the basis of unfounded allegations and at one point of time an enquiry was initiated against the workman on the allegations of his absent from duties but for the reason best known to the management the enquiry was dropped and later on the workman was awarded with promotion and increment in salary, in view of his performance and hard work but in the present enquiry the workman is awarded dismissal as punishment whereas the basis of 3 enquiry and the allegations were same i.e. absent from duties. It is further stated that the workman was given promotion from time to time which is a conclusive proof of his honesty and loyalty and during the course of employment the workman was working as per the directions of the management and as per the entire satisfaction of his superior and seniors. It is further stated that the termination of the workman on the basis of the findings of enquiry officer are illegal, bad in law and against the relevant provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the termination of workman vide letter dt. 03.09.2002 is unwarranted under the law. It is further stated that the workman served a legal notice of demand dt. 29.11.02 under registered AD which was duly acknowledged by the management and the management after the receipt of said demand notice gave a false and frivolous reply dt. 09.12.02 wherein the management specifically denied to take back the workman on duty with full back wages and other benefits. It is further stated that the workman vide dated 16.12.02 have moved his statement of claim before the conciliation officer but the management did not cooperate with the conciliation officer by giving false and frivolous reply to the statement of claim of the workman and the matter ultimately referred to adjudication before this court. It is further stated that the said order of termination is otherwise also bad in law and despite the best efforts of the workman to get alternative employment, he has remained unemployed throughout since his services were terminated till date and he is completely and fully dependent upon his elder brother and uncle. It is further stated that the acts of termination of services of workman are illegal, invalid and without any ground and bad in law and the management has arbitrarily and without any justification has deprived the workman from serve and the same tantamount to unfair labour practice in terms of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the termination of services of the workman by the management and the findings of the enquiry 4 officer may please be declared as illegal and against the provisions of law and accordingly the management be directed to reinstate the workman in employment with continuity of service with full back wages alongwith other consequential benefits.
3 Management has contested the present case and filed its reply stating therein that the management for over a decade has representative body elected by the employees called White Collar Committee and this committee has a representative body represents the employees, negotiates with the management for employees' benefits and other facilities and therefore, individual effort is not made by any employee as such the contention of the workman is false. It is denied that the workman was taking active part against some of the socalled arbitrary decisions of the management in respect of the working hours or that the workman taking active part in encouraging the other employees for pressing their demands. It is further stated that the committee, which is a representative body of the employee negotiates with the management and a bilateral Labour Agreement is signed in respect of the service conditions which is in force at least for three years and is reviews thereafter, this practice of negotiating is being followed without any problem since last 20 to 25 years. It is further stated that the service record of the workman has never been unblemished and there were instances when repeated complaints have been received from his superiors regarding his conduct and work and he was habitual absentee and he was also served with a charge sheet on earlier occasions for this absenteeism and an enquiry was held for his habitual absenteeism. However, on his appeal, he was allowed to continue in service but advised to refrain in future for unauthorized absenteeism. It is further stated that in view of the repeated unauthorized absenteeism, pursuant to the chargesheet dt. 15.04.02, a notice of enquiry dt. 19.05.02 was duly served on the workman and Sh. S.P. Choudhary was appointed as an enquiry officer, to enquire into the charges 5 and submit his findings to the management and the enquiry officer conducted a free and fair enquiry and submitted his report with the proceedings of the enquiry. It is further stated that the workman participated in the enquiry proceedings before enquiry officer wherein the witnesses of the management were duly cross examined by him and his colleague Sh. Rahul Batra, a defence assistant for the workman who was provided on his own request during the course of enquiry proceedings. It is further stated that during the enquiry proceedings the workman was provided with all documents filed on behalf of the management and those documents as asked for by him during the course of enquiry proceedings. It is further stated that the workman also filed documents in his defence and was given full opportunity to conduct his defence, but he however opted not to produce any witnesses in his defence, but conducted his own defence through his defence assistant Sh. Rahul Batra. It is denied that the enquiry officer was not an independent person and it is stated that the allegations that the management had levelled certain false charges and unauthorized absent against the workman with malafide intention of terminating his services is not correct. It is further stated that during the enquiry proceedings on behalf of the management the presenting officer was an employee, having no legal background. It is denied that the enquiry officer had not allowed the workman to defend his case on merits or that the entire enquiry proceeding was against the principles of natural justice and equity or that the findings of the enquiry officer are contrary to the facts and lack of material evidence or that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and bad in law or against the procedure of departmental enquiry. It is also denied that the enquiry officer was biased and it is stated that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on evidence on the basis of documents produced and therefore, it is denied that the findings of the enquiry officer are contrary to the facts and circumstances and /or material placed on record. It is also denied that the findings of the enquiry officer 6 were predetermined or that the enquiry was a merely formality and/or paper work and it is submitted that the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and the findings of the enquiry officer are based on record. It is further stated that the enquiry officer need not be a person not gainfully employed elsewhere and simply because the enquiry officer is gainfully employed does not necessarily lead to the inference that he will not be presumed to be impartial. It is further stated that in the earlier enquiry in view of the employee's own letter of plea on humanitarian grounds, his services were not terminated but he was allowed to continue in the job with a warning and the workman was promoted from assistant supervisor to supervisor after a delayed period of one and a half years of time because of his poor performance and indifferent attitude. It is denied that the termination of the workman from service amounts to unfair labour practice and /or victimization. It is further stated that the notice dt. 29.11.02 was duly replied by the management vide its letter dt. 09.12.02 under registered AD cover, however the same was returned by the postal department as 'addressee not available', and a copy of the same letter sent by UPC, however was not received back and apparently it was received by the addressee. It is further stated that reply to the statement of claim before the conciliation officer was filed an full cooperation was extended by the management but since matter could not be settled amicably, the matter was referred to adjudication. It is denied that the workman has made any efforts to get any alternative employment or that he is unemployed or dependent upon his elder brother and uncle and it is stated that the workman is gainfully employed. It is further stated that the order of termination is legal, valid and based on evidence and is not against law and the termination order has been passed after conducting an enquiry into the matter and is based on the findings of the enquiry officer. It is further stated that although the domestic enquiry has been validly and properly held and there was no violation of 7 principles of natural justice and the enquiry has not vitiated on any ground, yet in case this court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry into the charges levelled against the workman have not been validly held or the enquiry is liable to be set aside in that event and without admitting the above and it is further stated that the management may be permitted to adduce the evidence and hold a fresh enquiry before this court in respect of the charges levelled against the workman and in these circumstances, it is prayed that the workman is not entitled to the grant of any prayer and the prayer of the workman for setting aside the order dt. 03.09.02 and reinstatement in service are denied and it is further stated that the findings of the enquiry officer are not liable to be set aside and the prayer of continuity of service with back wages alongwith other consequential benefits is not admitted. 4 Rejoinder was filed by the workman in which he denied all the contents of written statement and the facts of statement of claim were reiterated and reaffirmed as correct and it was prayed that an award may kindly be passed in favour of the workman in terms of the prayer made by him in the statement of claim.
5 After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 23.08.2004 : 1 Whether Sh. Avinash Chaudhary S/o Late Sh. P.K. Chaudhary has been dismissed from the services illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief alongwith consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt. Notifications and what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? 2 Whether management conducted fair, legal and according to the principles of natural justice enquiry?
6 After framing of issues matter was fixed for argument on preliminary issue. 8 However, it is matter of record that the management filed an application seeking amendment in written statement which application was allowed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 29.09.05 and matter was adjourned for filing rejoinder and framing of issues. My Ld. Predecessor framed following amended issues vide order dt. 21.11.05:
1 Wether Sh. Avinash Chaudhary S/o Late Sh. P.K. Chaudhary has been dismissed from the services illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief alongwith consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt. Notifications and what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? 2 Whether management conducted legal, fair, proper and according to principles of natural justice enquiry?
3 Whether workman is not a workman within definition of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act? OPM 7 Issue no.2 and 3 were treated as preliminary issues and the workman was
directed to file his affidavit on enquiry issue. The workman filed his affidavit Ex.WW1/A on preliminary issues and he examined himself as WW1. The workman did not examine any other witness on preliminary issues and Ld. AR for workman closed workman's evidence. On the other hand the management examined two witnesses on preliminary issues i.e. Sh. S.K. Bhaskar, Asstt. Airport Manager of management as MW1 and Sh. S.P. Chaudhary, enquiry officer as MW2. The management did not examine any other witness and Ld.AR for management closed management's evidence and matter was fixed for arguments on enquiry issue.
8 Both the parties filed written arguments. I have perused the same. During the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the workman submitted that issue no.2 is 9 before the court "whether management conducted fair, legal and according to the principles of natural justice enquiry. Ld. AR for the workman submitted that during the course of enquiry the workman had brought to the notice of enquiry officer his all proof of innocence but the the enquiry officer was biased and even the application of the workman dated 20.08.2002 for seeking legal assistance and change of place of enquiry was rejected and the enquiry officer was under the defacto control of the management and enquiry officer was a practicing advocate and management was represented through qualified person. Ld. AR for the workman further submitted that findings of the enquiry officer are contrary to the facts and lack of material evidence and enquiry officer did not consider the evidence relating to ill health of the workman and his mother. Ld. AR for workman further submitted that a legal practitioner can not be appointed as enquiry officer. On these grounds, Ld. AR for the workman prayed that the termination of the workman by the management and the findings of the enquiry officer may please be declared as illegal and against the provisions of law accordingly the management be directed reinstate the workman in employment with continuity of service with full back wages along with other consequential benefits.
9 On the other hand, Ld. AR for the management submitted that the main charges in enquiry against the workman relates to the absenteeism and workman has been charged for remaining absent from duty without prior intimation sanctioned leave and approval. The relevant rules dealing with the obtaining leaves are provided in appointment letter, service manual and notice displayed. Ld. AR for the management has explained in length the clause 15 and 16 of appointment letter and Service manual rule 9.
10 Ld. AR for the management further submitted that enquiry officer observed that intimation with regard to illness of workman was given but the document 10 supplied to the enquiry officer pertains to the illness of his brother and mother.
Ld. AR for the management further submitted that workman was sanctioned all types of leaves and even in the case of emergency leaves without pay was granted. Ld. AR for the management further submitted that document relating to illness of mother of workman were not trustworthy and some documents filed in record by workman belong to Smt. Shanti Chaddha whereas the name of employee's mother is Smt. Shanta Chaudhary. Ld. AR for the management further submitted that workman plea is that request for seeking legal assistance and change of place of enquiry were rejected in an arbitrary manner by the enquiry officer. This is not correct. Enquiry officer considered the application of workman. Ld. AR for the management further submitted that presenting officer of the company was not a legal expert, the purpose of enquiry was a fact finding in nature and workman was already being represented and taking help from coemployee Mr. Rahul Batra. As per company rules and procedure the outsiders are not allowed to participate in the enquiry and the place of enquiry was at the IGI Airport which was not the office of the company, so the question of putting pressure on the witness did not arise and the change of venue was not necessary. Ld. AR for the management further submitted that assistance of an advocate in a domestic enquiry could not be claimed as of right. In his contention he has relied upon the citation i.e. Cipla Limited & Ors. Vs. Repudaman Bhanot & Anr. 1999 (4) SCC 188.
11 Ld. AR for the management further submitted that engagement of lawyer as enquiry officer held to be valid and proper not incompetent on ground of bias to conduct a domestic enquiry where he is paid remuneration for such work. In this regard, he has relied upon citation i.e. "Saran Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vishwanath & Anr. 1964 (II) LLJ 139 (141).
12 Ld. AR for the management further drawn the attention towards the charge 11 sheet and stated that management vide dated 15.04.2012 had charged the workman as follows :
"That Shri Avneesh Choudhary is in the habit of remaining absent from his duties without leave, prior permission or approval. From time to time, Shri Avneesh Choudhary was warned in writing but he has shown no improvement. Sh. Avneesh Choudhary remained absent without sanctioned leave, intimation, prior permission or approval for 55 days in the year 2001 and for 34 days in the year 2002 till 28th February 2002. The details of the absent from the duty without sanctioned leave, intimation, prior permission or approval are as follows. The total number of absent are given below: Month 2001 2002 January 10 February 24 March April May June July August 05 September 04 October 03 November 12 December 31 Total Days 55 24
13 Ld. AR for the management further submitted that management proceeded with the enquiry as per steps of the enquiry and called upon parties to file the documents and also examined the witnesses on their behalf in order to prove the case and management has examined Sh. Sanjay Chaudhary (AAPM) as MW1 and MW1 Sh. Sanjay Chaudhary in his statement has proved the record brought along with him which is on original record of the documents and copy of which were 12 already given to the second party. This record is maintained by the office during the course of business and the original record was shown to the second party to his satisfaction during the examination of the witness as well as during the cross examination.
14 Ld. AR for the management further submitted that MW1 in his examination stated that workman is working as a Supervisor in his department and his department maintains the entire record of attendance and assignments given to the party No.2. He has stated that his rank is Asstt. Airport Manager (Maintenance) and he is also looking after the U.L.D. (unit load device) control and caretaker sections along with maintenance upkeep maintenance of all operational vehicle and equipments of CAPL. This witness stated that workman was in the habit of remaining absent from time to time without obtaining proper leave, intimation or approval for the above stated reason and he has given charge sheet dated 15.04.2002 vide Ex.MW1/1 and the reply of the charge sheet was received vide Ex.MW1/2 signed by the workman and the said reply was undated and was received by the office on 23.04.2002 along with annexure Ex.MW1/W1 to 49 i.e. 3 + 49 in 52 pages. This witness further submitted that management was not satisfied by the explanation of workman and so decided to hold the enquiry, the letter of enquiry dated 09.05.2002 is Ex.MW1/50 and notice of enquiry dated 23.05.2002 is Ex.MW1/51 and during the course of enquiry a letter dated 04.06.2002 was received by the management along with the copy of the reply to the charge sheet the letter is Ex.MW1/22.
15 Ld. AR for the management has drawn the attention of this court towards cross examination of workman. In his cross examination, workman admitted that there are three types of leaves excluding LWOP. The Privilege leave, sick leave and casual leave are authorized leaves. However, in case of emergency like illness self near and dear in the family. He further admitted that P.L. & S.L. are subject 13 to the record of attendance of the preceding year. This witness denied that he has earned lesser P.L. & S.L. in the year 2001 and 2002. Ex.RW1/M1 which is the leave record is correct.
16 Ld. AR for the management has submitted inquiry report in detail before the court and submitted that in the present case, the workman had failed to establish that how any irregularities in this proceedings though not admitted, has caused prejudice to him, invalidating an action/decision on ground of mere technical violation of the principles which amount to negation of the justice instead of doing justice between the parties. Ld. AR for the management further submitted that the termination of services of Sh. Avneesh Chaudhary is on the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer in respect of the charge sheet and the report is based on the evidence, the enquiry had been properly conducted in accordance with the principle of natural justice.
17 Ld. AR for the management further submitted that although the domestic enquiry had been properly held by observing the principles of natural justice, yet for some reason or the other, in case the domestic inquiry held in the present case is set aside and/or held to be violated then, in that event, the management craves leave of the Hon'ble Court to hold enquiry afresh and/or to adduce evidence before the Hon'ble Court, in support of the action taken by the management and to substantiate the charges leveled against the workman and the order of punishment. Ld. AR for the management submitted that employee was habitual absentee on earlier occasion also enquiry was held for his habitual absenteeism and on his appeal he was allowed to continue in service and advised to refrain in future for unauthorized absenteeism. Ld. AR for the management further submitted that enquiry officer had conducted a free and fair eqnuiry witness of management were duly cross examined by the employee and his representative defence assistant. Ld. AR for the management further submitted that workman was provided all the 14 documents, granted opportunity to conduct his case but he did not produce any witness and the presenting officer was an employee having no legal background and the findings of the enquiry were based on evidence. Ld. AR for the management further submitted that notice of enquiry was given to the workman mentioning that the employee can take assistance from any office colleague employed in the company during the enquiry proceeding. Ld. AR for the management further submitted that notice of the enquiry by the enquiry officer was sent to the workman informing about the venue of enquiry, time and liberty to inspect the file and file written statement Ex.WW1/4 and list of witness Ex.MW1/5 and list of document with documents duly received by the workman vide Ex.MW1/4.
18 Record perused. On perusal of record, my findings on preliminary issue i.e. issue no.2 are as follows: ISSUE NO.2 19 Onus to prove this issue was upon the management and the management was required to prove that the management conducted legal, fair, proper and according to principles of natural justice enquiry. The workman was cross examined by Ld.AR for management on enquiry issue and in his testimony he has deposed that on an earlier occasion a domestic enquiry was held against him in respect of absenteeism and further admitted that he was issued a show cause notice Ex.WW1/M1 on 14.08.2000 regarding certain irregularities reported against him. This witness further deposed that on the basis of enquiry held against him a warning letter dt. 28.07.1998 Ex.WW1/M2 was issued to him and same bears his signatures at point A. This witness further deposed that he did not recollect if the enquiry officer on the first date of hearing i.e. on 04.06.02 had explained to him the procedure to be followed during the enquiry and he also did not recollect if he was given in writing the procedure to be followed during the enquiry. This witness 15 further deposed that he did not remember whether he had cross examined the witnesses or not. This witness was shown the enquiry proceedings on which the cross examination is conducted and he had signed the proceedings. This witness further deposed that he with the assistance of Mr. Rahul Batra, his defence assistance, cross examined the management witnesses.
20 On the other hand the management examined Sh. S.P. Chaudhary, Enquiry Officer as MW2. In his testimony he admitted that the enquiry of the workman was conducted in a space provided by the management but he is not aware whether the space where the enquiry was conducted was of the management. This witness further admitted that the enquiry was conducted by him only on the issue of absenteeism and he did not consider any irrelevant document or irrelevant peace of evidence filed by either parties while passing final order after enquiry. This witness further deposed that the workman filed an application and requested to get assistance of Mr. Rahul Batra on his behalf and he allowed the same and he normally allow the assistance to any charged employee provided the person is employee of that organization. This witness denied to the suggestion that he did not consider the medical certificate of the workman produced during the enquiry or that he did not consider the explanation and documentary proof regarding alleged absence of the workman during the enquiry or that his findings on this aspect is perverse and based on irrelevant considerations or that enquiry was not conducted according to principles of natural justice.
21 Although the workman has exhibited documents as Ex.WW1/16, Ex.WW1/17, Ex.WW1/18, Ex.WW1/19, Ex.WW1/20, Ex.WW1/21, Ex.WW1/22, Ex.WW1/23, Ex.WW1/24, Ex.WW1/25, Ex.WW1/26, Ex.WW1/27, Ex.WW1/28, Ex.WW1/29, Ex.WW1/30, Ex.WW1/31, Ex.WW1/32, Ex.WW1/33, Ex.WW1/34, Ex.WW1/35, Ex.WW1/36, Ex.WW1/37, Ex.WW1/38, Ex.WW1/39, Ex.WW1/40, Ex.WW1/41, Ex.WW1/42, Ex.WW1/43, Ex.WW1/44, Ex.WW1/45 which are 16 photocopies of medical treatment prescriptions, leave intimations, pathology reports and medical fitness certificates but this fact has not been mentioned in the statement of claim that the workman that he, his brother and his mother were not well during this relevant period.
22 On perusal of enquiry proceedings it has come on record that workman was terminated on the ground of his habitual absenteeism and it has also come on record that management had issued charge sheet Ex.WW1/4 to the workman on 15.04.2002 and it has further come on record that the workman had filed reply to the charge sheet Ex.WW1/5. It has further come on record that the workman had participated in the enquiry proceedings after receiving notice from Sh. S.P. Chaudhary, Enquiry Officer. The workman was given opportunity by the management to take assistance from any office colleague employed in the company during the enquiry proceedings vide notice dt. 09.05.02. The workman was also given liberty to inspect the file and file written statement vide notice dt. 23.05.02. The workman was informed about the time and venue of enquiry vide notice dt. 23.05.02. The procedure to be followed in the domestic enquiry was given to the workman vide letter dt. 04.06.02. The workman was provided all the documents relating to the enquiry proceedings. The workman was given opportunity to lead his evidence and also to cross examine management witness. Since it has come on record that the management had charge sheeted the workman on his habitual absenteeism and the enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry proceedings in a fair and legal manner and the proceedings conducted by the enquiry officer appears to be followed by the principles of natural justice and the enquiry officer was not biased while conducting enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the preliminary issue i.e. issue no.2 is decided in favour of the management and against the workman. Since the preliminary issue i.e. issue no.2 has been decided in favour of the management and 17 against the workman, the issue in terms of reference regarding termination of services of the workman does not require to be decided now and the reference sent by Secretary (Labour), Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide notification No.F. 24(1438)/2003/Lab/866266 dt.15.07.03 is answered by holding that the workman is not entitled to any relief against the management.
A copy of this order be sent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi of Distt./Area concerned for publication as per rules and judicial file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (RAMESH KUMARII)
ON 29.09.2014 PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURTIX/
EAST DISTT./KKD COURTS:DELHI
18