Delhi District Court
Shri Neeraj Bhushan vs M/S Press Trust Of India Ltd on 24 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. J.P.S. MALIK, POLC-VII,
(EAST-DISTRICT), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
ID No. 36/2004
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0092122004
Shri Neeraj Bhushan
S/o Vinay Kumar Singh,
219-B, Pocket J & K,
Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.
New Address:
129-A, Pocket J & K,
Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095. .......Workman
Versus
M/s Press Trust of India Ltd.,
PTI Building,
4 Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001. .......Management
Date of institution of the Suit : 08.03.2004
Date on which order was reserved : 18.02.2011
Date of decision : 24.02.2011
AWARD
1. This is a claim petition filed u/s 10 (4A) of the Industrial
Disputes Act by the workman Neeraj Bhushan. The workman has
ID No.36/2004 Page 1/24
challenged his dismissal from the job by the Management of M/s Press
Trust of India Limited, on 23.4.2003. Earlier to that, a domestic enquiry
was conducted against the workman by the Management, because of
alleged misconduct on his part, following a chargesheet dated
03.12.2002 issued. The allegations against the workman were proved, as
per the findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 23.01.2003. In pursuant to
the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the workman was dismissed from
service by the Management. The workman has challenged the dismissal
from the job by the Management, interalia on the ground that allegations
made against him were false. He was victimized by the Management, he
being a Working Journalist and being a General Secretary of the PTI
Employees' Union, Delhi, so elected, in the elections held on
19.01.2002.
2. In the Written Statement filed, on behalf of the Management,
the claim has been contested. Details of allegations against the workman
constituting the alleged misconduct, has been given in the written
statement filed. Further, it was claimed that a fair and impartial enquiry
was conducted against the workman and despite notice, the workman
failed to participate in the proceedings.
ID No.36/2004 Page 2/24
3. Rejoinder to the written statement of the Management was filed
on behalf of the workman.
4. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed:
(i) Whether the domestic enquiry was not in
accordance with the principles of natural justice or
was not valid, if so its effect?
(ii) Whether the termination of the services of the
workman is illegal or unjustified?
(iii) To what relief is workman entitled to?
5. Issue no.1, was as regards the domestic enquiry, whether the
same was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice.
The workman filed his affidavit of evidence on the issue of enquiry,
which was treated as a preliminary issue. In evidence of the
Management, two witnesses were examined.
6. Vide order dated 19.09.2006, the enquiry conducted by the
Management was set aside. Preliminary issue, being issue no.1, was
ID No.36/2004 Page 3/24
decided in favour of the workman and it was so decided, primarily
because the Enquiry Officer Sh. S.D. Narain, who conducted the
enquiry, had himself issued a show cause notice dated 07.08.2002 to the
workman, and after considering the reply to said show cause notice
dated 07.8.2002, had issued a warning to him vide letter dated
11.9.2000. Further, Sh. S.D. Narain, the Enquiry Officer had lodged a
complaint to the police against the workman and three others, on
05.10.2002, and the show cause notice issued by him, was also a part of
the enquiry conducted by him.
7. Management was given the opportunity to prove the allegations
against the workman in the court itself, after the enquiry conducted by
the Management, was set aside. Management has examined 14
witnesses. Workman also filed a fresh affidavit of evidence and was
cross examined on behalf of the Management.
8. Arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties. Written
submissions have also been placed on record on behalf of the
Management, and I hold as under:-.
ID No.36/2004 Page 4/24
9. As per the chargesheet EX.WW1/6, dated 03.12.2002 issued to
the workman, the alleged misconduct on the part of the workman has
been enumerated in eight counts. Charge no.1 relates to instigation to
wives of the staff members and outsiders to make criminal trespass on
22.10.2002. Charge no. 2 relates to unauthorized absence from duty
w.e.f. 23.10.2002 onwards. Charge no. 3 relates to making baseless and
wild allegations against Sr. Manager (Administration) undermining the
interests of the organization. Charge no.4 relates to a letter got written
to the General Manager on October 28, 2002 from All India General
Mazdoor Trade Union, New Delhi. Charge no.5 relates to going to
various departments of the Management organization on 31.10.2002,
asking the employees to participate in 'halla bol' rally starting 1.00 p.m.
on 01.11.2002. Charge no.6 relates to inciting the workers to indulge in
violence. Charge no.7 relates to intending to intimidate the Company's
Directors on 26.11.2002, threatening to hold dharnas at their offices.
Charge no. 8 relates to putting up banner, demonstrating and blocking
the side gate of the PTI building on November 22, 2002.
CHARGE NO.1:.
The evidence produced on behalf of the Management as regards
ID No.36/2004 Page 5/24
this charge of inciting wives of the staff members to commit a criminal
trespass, alongwith outsiders in the form of deposition of MW-6, Ms.
Padma Alva, being the Chief Administrative Officer & Regional
Manager, working with the Management, who has testified that on
09.10.2002, during one of her rounds in the office on the first floor of
the main hall, she saw Neeraj Bhushan, workman alongwith Vinod
Kumar huddled with 3-4 other employees and on seeing the witness, the
workman Neeraj Bhushan started speaking loudly, telling gathering of
his colleagues, that they and other members of the union must persuade,
urge and literally compel their wives to come to PTI office to
demonstrate. Then, there is deposition of MW-1, Sh. H.S. Bawa, who
has testified as regards the demonstration by some ladies at the main
gate of PTI on 22nd October, 2002, at about 1.00 p.m. when the
information was given to him by darban Ved Prakash, and he had also
reached portico of the PTI Building after receiving the information.
MW-2, Sh. Ved Prakash, darban, has also testified as regards the
demonstration by ladies. MW-3, Sh. Rakesh Hari Pathak, who was
working as Business & Corporate Editor with PTI, has testified as
regards the demonstration by some ladies on 22.10.2002, and so
testified MW-4 Sh. Shakeel Ahmed, who was General Manager
ID No.36/2004 Page 6/24
(Administration) with the Management and MW-5 Sh. Subhash Chander
Malhotra, Sr. Editor- Photo, with the Management, also testified that
photographs exhibited as EX.MW2/1 collectively, were taken by him.
MW-8 Sh. G.L. Mehta, who was SHO, P.S. Parliament Street on
22.10.2002, has also testified as regards the information received at the
police station, regarding the demonstration. The witness had reached the
spot and the ladies demonstrators were taken to the police station, as per
his directions. Though the workman has disputed the fact of the
demonstration at the main gate of the PTI building by wives of the staff
members, but there is sufficient evidence on the record in the form of
deposition of the witnesses as well as the photographs EX.MW2/1,
EX.MW2/4, and also the record prepared at the police station
EX.MW13/1 that there was in fact, a demonstration by the ladies being
the wives and relatives of staff at the main gate of the PTI building on
22.10.2002 around 1.00 p.m., but the issue is whether it was at the
instance and instigation of the workman. It is not the case of the
Management that workman Neeraj Bhushan was present, when
demonstration was going on, but as per show cause notice dated
18.11.2002 EX.WW1/4, the Management in response to denial by the
workman that he instigated wives of some staff members and outsiders
ID No.36/2004 Page 7/24
to hold a demonstration, the Management questioned that it was
reported that demonstrators, who made criminal trespass into the PTI
Building, were raising abusive slogans against senior members of the
Management and in support of the workman and in case they were not
agents of the workman, then why they would have come and raised
slogans. So, by inference, it was taken that they were all supporters of
workman Neeraj Bhushan, and had come to demonstrate at the PTI
building, at his instigation, for the reason that they were raising slogans
and abusive slogans against the senior members of the Management and
in support of the workman, and it is the deposition of MW-6, Ms.
Padma Alva, Chief Administrative Officer & Regional Manager, who
has testified that she had heard Neeraj Bhushan telling his colleagues
on 09.10.2002 that they should persuade their wives to come to the PTI
building, to demonstrate. This part of the deposition of MW-6, Ms.
Padma Alwa, cannot be believed, particularly in the light of show cause
notice dated 18.11.2002 EX.WW1/4, given by Sh. Subimal Choudhury,
Sr. Manager (Administration), where the only argument on behalf of
the Management was that demonstrators were raising abusive slogans
against the senior members of the Management and in support of the
workman and nowhere, it is mentioned that MW-Ms. Padma Alva had
ID No.36/2004 Page 8/24
heard the workman asking his colleagues to persuade their wives to
come to PTI building for demonstration. The evidence brought on
record by the Management in the form of inferences that the
demonstrators were raising slogans in favour of the workers and so, they
were all demonstrating at the instigation of the workman, is not
sufficient to accept as proof of the allegations, vide this charge against
the workman.
CHARGE NO.2:
This charge relates to workman being absent without
authorization from duties since 23.10.2002. As per the material brought
on record, the workman was on sanctioned leave from 09.10.2002 to
22.10.2002. As per the admitted case of both the parties, the workman
on 23.10.2002 had sent a telegram EX. WW1/M1 to the Chief News
Editor, Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, stating that his services would be available
to the company only after the agitation in which the claimant was
involved, is over. The Chief News Editor, Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, had then
sent a letter dated 24.10.2002, EX.WW1/M4, pointing out to the
workman that he should attend to his duties as he was the first and
foremost employee of the company and workman was directed to
ID No.36/2004 Page 9/24
immediately report for his duties stating that his sudden and
unauthorized absence had affected the working of the Central News
Desk. The workman has denied receiving of letter dated 24.10.2002
EX.WW1/M4, but same does not appear to be correct. In the show
cause notice dated 09.11.2002 EX.WW1/2, there was a clear reference
to letter dated October 24, 2002, sent to him by Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, in
response to telegram received from the workman. Show cause notice
was replied to by the workman vide his letter dated 14.11.2002
EX.WW1/3, and receiving of letter dated 24.10.2002 was not disputed
by the workman. There was again a reference to the letter dated October
24, 2002, sent to the workman vide show cause notice dated 18.11.2002
EX.WW1/4, which was replied to by the workman vide his reply dated
25.11.2002 and the fact of having received letter dated 24.10.2002 was
not disputed by the workman. In any case, the workman was aware of
the fact, that he was not attending his duties beginning 23.10.2002 and
he had so intimated to the Management vide telegram dated 23.10.2002
EX.WW1/M1. The workman was absent from his duties beginning
23.10.2002, is a fact. The Management has relied upon a case decided
by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Burn and Co., Calcutta Vs.
Their Employees, (1956) SCR 781, wherein it was held by Hon'ble
ID No.36/2004 Page 10/24
Supreme Court that ground of discharge was continued absence of the
employee and his inability to do work. In that case, the workman
Ashimananda Bannerji, was arrested by the Government under the West
Bengal Security Act and detained in jail from 25.01.1949 to 05.04.1949,
and his services were terminated by the company on 22.4.1949. The
appellate tribunal had accepted the claim of the workman on the ground
that he had been discharged by the company, without framing a charge
or holding an enquiry and thus rules of natural justice had been violated.
In the facts of the case, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, that it
was difficult to see what purpose was to be served by a formal charge
being delivered to him, since it was a case of continued absence of the
employee and his inability to do work. In the present case, it is not
continued absence of the workman for a considerable point of time and
also, not a case of his inability to work. The workman had informed the
Management about a labour agitation and his, being the General
Secretary of the Workers Union, being involved in the agitation. The
Management was well aware of the agitation by the workers' union.
Another case, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as M/s
Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Their Workmen, AIR
1958 SC 130, also relied upon on behalf of the Management, is also on
ID No.36/2004 Page 11/24
the similar point, where the workmen were not able to attend to their
work because they had been arrested by the police but it was a case of
continued absence of the workmen for a considerable point of time. In
the present case, the Management itself vide office order dated
11.11.2002 EX.MW4/W1, has barred the entry of the workman to the
PTI building, though same was later on clarified vide show cause notice
dated 18.11.2002 that ban was for one day only. The language used in
the office order dated 11.11.2002 nowhere gives the impression that ban
was only for one day. Even earlier to that, the Management vide
document EX.MW4/W2 dated 28.10.2002 had decided to withhold the
salary of the workman beyond 22.10.2002 and perusal of the document
EX.MW4/W2 and EX.MW4/W2 clearly shows that issue was not that
the work of the Management was affected because of the workman not
attending to his work, his being pre-occupied by the labour agitation,
but these were the counter actions, being taken by the Management to
desist the workman from involving himself in the labour agitation and in
any case, to weaken the labour agitation. On behalf of the Management,
reliance has also been placed on a case decided by Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported as DTC Vs. Sardar Singh, (2004) 7 SCC 574, and
mainly, it was argued that mere information was not sufficient and leave
ID No.36/2004 Page 12/24
ought to be sanctioned by the Management and even giving of an
application after availing of leave, without being sanctioned will not
assist the case of the concerned employee. It is respectfully submitted
that the case being relied upon by the Management, does not help its
case as the workman has not applied for leave, either before availing the
same or after the same all along insisting that he was involved in a
labour agitation, being General Secretary of the PTI Employees' Union.
No lack of interest can be imputed to the workman in the present case as
was the case in DTC Vs. Sardar Singh, (2004) SCC 574. It was also
not a case of habitual absenteeism and the facts were clearly
distinguishable from the case reported as L.N.T. Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N.
Udayakumar, (2008)I SCC 224, wherein it was held that habitual
absenteeism means the gross violence of the discipline. There is no
allegation and no evidence of any habitual absenteeism, on the part of
the workman. The workman had argued that his absence from the work
cannot be termed as unauthorized as he was on strike, espousing the
cause of the workman being General Secretary of PTI Employees'
Union. The contention of the workman being on strike, has been
contested on behalf of the Management, and it was argued that as per
the definition of strike, vide Section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
ID No.36/2004 Page 13/24
"strike" means a cessation of work by a body of persons, employed in
any industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, or a refusal,
under a common understanding of any number of persons who are or
have been so employed, to continue to work or to accept employment,
and individual action by the workman cannot be termed as strike. In this
regard, on behalf of the Management, reliance has been placed on a case
decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Buckingam and
Carnatic Company Ltd. Vs. Workers of the Buckingam and
Carnatic Company Ltd., AIR 1953 SC 47, and also another case
decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Bank of India Vs.
T.S. Kelawala (1990) 4 SCC 744. Reliance was also placed on a case
decided by Hon'ble High Court reported as Ram Sarup and another
Vs. Rex, AIR (36) 1949 Allahabad 218, wherein it was held that mere
absence from the work, does not amount to taking part in a strike,
within the meaning of expression of Industrial Disputes Act and it was
further held that there ought to be some evidence to show that the
absence of the applicant Ram Shiroman was the result of the some
concert between him and other persons or that there was a common
understanding between him and other persons that they would not
continue to work or there should have been a refusal on his part. There
ID No.36/2004 Page 14/24
was a clear cut refusal on the part of the workman to continue to work
as is clear from the communication EX.WW1/M1, which is a telegram
sent by the workman to Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Chief News Editor of the
Management, wherein he had stated that his services will be available
to the company, only after a union agitation, in which he was involved,
is over. It was in the knowledge of the Management that there was some
labour dispute, and the employees union, of which the workman was a
General Secretary, was agitating alongwith other office bearers of the
said union who were also participating in dharna, demonstration, etc.
and the action of the workman in absenting during the period, the
employees' union was involved in an agitation, against the Management,
is akin to a strike, as the workman was not alone and was not absenting
from the work, because of his individual problem. On behalf of the
Management, reliance was placed on a case decided by the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi reported as Vimla Mehra Vs. K.S. Mehra, 158
(2009) DLT 136, wherein it was held that any evidence, which is led
beyond the pleadings, cannot be looked into. It was in the context of the
workman raising the contention, of being on strike, at the stage of final
arguments. This was the stand taken on behalf of the workman, may not
be in so expressed words, but by sending a telegram dated 23.10.2002,
ID No.36/2004 Page 15/24
the workman had made clear to the Management, that he was not able to
attend to his duties, because of the agitation in which the employees
union was involved. So, the absence of the workman from his duties
beginning 23.10.2002, till the employees union was agitating for its
demands and for the legitimate rights of its members, cannot be termed
as unauthorized absence, from duties. The Management has failed to
prove this charge also, against the workman.
CHARGE NO.3:
Charge no. 3 pertains to undermining the interests of PTI by
making baseless and wild allegations through circulars, notices, etc. and
two of the witnesses MW-6, Ms. Padma Alva, Chief Administrative
Officer & Regional Manager, and MW-7, Sh. Amrit Mohan, Sr.
Correspondent have deposed in that regard. MW-6, Ms. Padma Alva,
has testified that notices authored by workman Neeraj Bhushan, were put up at public places like INS Building, Press Club of India and UNI, with a deliberate intention to harm the reputation of PTI. MW-6 Ms. Padma Alva, further stated that she was informed by Mr. Amrit Mohan, MW-7 that notices have been pasted on these places. MW-7 Amrit Mohan, Sr. Correspondent, has testified that on 13.11.2002, while ID No.36/2004 Page 16/24 entering the press club, he saw a notice on letterhead of PTI Employees' Union, Delhi, signed by its office bearers, including workman Neeraj Bhushan, wherein it was stated that soon there would be demonstrations at the offices of the Directors of PTI, its Chairman and the officers. MW-7, Sh. Amrit Mohan, further stated that on 18.11.2002, when he had gone to Indian Newspaper Society, he again saw, the notice dated 18.11.2002 on the letterhead of PTI Employees' Union and notice was an intimation for the union meeting, to finalize agitation programme. When the PTI Employees' Union was agitating for its demands, a notice asking for a meeting to finalize the agitation programme or a call to demonstrate at the offices of the Directors of PTI or Chairman, cannot be termed as an attempt to undermine the interests of PTI, as it is open to the employees' union, to take recourse to all lawful means to prevail upon the Management to meet the legitimate demands of the employees. The evidence brought on record by the Management is just inadequate to hold that the conduct of the workman, vide the two notices as deposed by MW-7, in any way, was intended to undermine the interests of the Management.
CHARGE NO.4:
ID No.36/2004 Page 17/24
It relates to encouraging the outsiders to indulge in illegal demonstration. MW-4 Sh. Shakeel Ahmed, General Manager (Administration) has testified, as regards this charge against the workman and deposed that he also came to know that workman, Neeraj Bhushan and other office bearers of his union got the All India Trade Union, New Delhi, to send a letter to the then General Manager on 28.10.2002 threatening to hold demonstration at his residence in New Delhi, and outside the PTI building at Parliament Street and to burn his effigy in support of his union. MW-4 Sh. Shakeel Ahmed, General Manager (Administration), has testified that he had come to know, without disclosing, how he had come to know, that any such letter was got written from All India Mazdoor Trade Union, New Delhi, by the workman, and there is no convincing evidence brought on record on behalf of the Management, to hold that said letter threatening to demonstrate at the residence of the General Manager of the Management, was in fact, written at the instance of the workman. The Management has failed to prove this charge also.
CHARGE NO.5:
Charge no.5 is pertaining to threatening the Sr. Manager and ID No.36/2004 Page 18/24 inciting the staff to leave their work for purpose of demonstration. Four witnesses have testified as regards this charge. MW-1 Sh. H.S. Bawa, Sr. Manager-Security, Building and Maintenance, has testified that workman Neeraj Bhushan alongwith Vinod Kumar came to the office on 31.10.2002 in the afternoon. Both of them were going department to department, and then he gave this information to the Regional Manager vide letter dated 31.10.2002 and both of them had been absenting from their duties. Regional Manager, MW-6, Ms. Padma Alva, who stated that on 31.10.2002, she learnt that workman Neeraj Bhushan and Vinod Kumar, made a trip to the office while they had not attended the office on that day, and then she immediately instructed MW-1 Sh. H.S. Bawa, Sr. Manager-Security, Building and Maintenance, to look into the matter and report to her about the same. Mr. Bawa submitted the note EX.MW1/3 informing that Neeraj Bhushan, the workman and Vinod Kumar, who had been absenting themselves without authorization of the office, came to the office and were going from department to department and inciting the staff on 31.10.2002. MW-4 Sh. Shakeel Ahmed, General Manager (Administration), also testified that he came to know on 31.10.2002 that workman Neeraj Bhushan visited the office and went to various departments asking staff to participate in 'halla bol' ID No.36/2004 Page 19/24 rally starting at 1.00 p.m. on 01.11.2002, after leaving their duties. It is MW-5, Sh. Subhash Malhotra, Sr. Editor-Photo, who has testified the fact that on 31.10.2002 workman, Neeraj Bhushan, came to Photo Fax Department and asked the witness to allow his staffers to attend a 'halla bol' rally on 01.11.2002. MW-5, Sh. Subhash Malhotra, further testified that when he declined to allow staffers of his, to leave the duties, and attend the rally, the workman incited the staffers to attend the rally. When the employees' union was agitating for a cause of the employees, exhorting the employees to participate in a rally, to be held by the union, cannot be termed, as threatening the Sr. Manager and inciting the staff to leave their work. Asking its members by the union or its office bearers to participate in a rally being organized to further the cause of the employees, does not fall in the category of unfair labour practices, as scheduled in 5th Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no allegation and no evidence against the workman, that the workman or the person accompanying him, in any way was threatening or intimidating workers to participate in the rally or threatening to intimidate them to prevent them from attending work. It cannot be termed as no more than convassing, even if the allegations are correct. The Management has failed to prove this charge also.
ID No.36/2004 Page 20/24 CHARGE NO.6:
Charge no. 6 pertains to inciting the employees to involve or indulge in violance, to resort to criminal intimidation and to adopt criminal and unlawful means. MW-6, Ms. Padma Alva, Chief Administrative Officer & Regional Manager, has testified as regards the allegations under this charge and stated that on 25.10.2002, Sh. H.S. Bawa, Sr.Manager-Security, Building & Maintenance, informed her that a notice signed by workman, Neeraj Bhushan, was pasted on the corridor. The witness went there and found the same enumerating the schedule of proposed rally on 26.10.2002. As per the notice, it was stated that during the programme, the workers were free to deal with anti-workers elements, photographs of the notice is EX.MW6/3 and notice no more than asking the employees to participate in the rally on 26.10.2002 and the assertion that the workers were free to deal with anti-worker elements in any way, should be read in context of the rally and should be restricted to the fact while participating in the rally, the workers were free to deal, with any anti-worker element, which may join the rally or in any way, want to frustrate the cause of the employees. It is taking too far to interpret the said call, as inciting the ID No.36/2004 Page 21/24 employees to indulge in violence or to resort to criminal intimidation.
There is no evidence on record, to prove this charge against the workman.
CHARGE NO.7:
Charge no. 7 pertains to indulging in actions, prejudicial to the interest and reputation of PTI and attempting to intimidate the Management. This charge is a repetition and overlapping of charge no. 3 and 5 and it is the same evidence, which is being relied upon on behalf of the Management. Accordingly, it is held that like charge no. 3 and 5, Management has also failed to prove this charge also.
CHARGE NO.8:
It pertains to disrupting the peace of PTI and its workmen. The evidence being relied upon on behalf of the Management is that of MW-1, H.S. Bawa, Sr.Manager-Security, Building & Maintenance. MW-1, had testified that on 22.11.2002 afternoon, workman Neeraj Bhushan and several of his supporters, put up banners and started a dharna / demonstration blocking the side gate of PTI building, in violation of the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi restraining Neeraj ID No.36/2004 Page 22/24 Bhushan, the workman, and office bearers of his union and his agents from demonstrating within a radius of 50 metres or in any way blocking the ingress and egress of PTI building. MW-1 left, when SHO came and took them away around 5.30 p.m. As regards the violation of the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, as per the admitted case of both the parties, Management had moved Hon'ble High Court in contempt proceedings against the workman and others, because of violation of orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, and that issue had been taken care of in the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court. Otherwise, starting a dharna and demonstration and putting up banners are part of legitimate means, available to the workers to further their cause and in any case, where there is employees' agitation in any establishment, some disturbance of peace cannot be avoided. From the evidence brought on record in the form of deposition of MW-1 Sh. H.S. Bawa, Sr. Manager, Security, Building & Maintenance, it cannot be concluded that action of the workman was intended to disrupt the peace of Management PTI and its working.
10. Accordingly, it is held that Management has failed to prove the allegations against the workman leveled vide chargesheet EX.WW1/6, ID No.36/2004 Page 23/24 and so, has failed to prove misconduct on the part of the workman.
Dismissal of the workman by the Management vide order dated 23.4.2003, was both illegal and unjustified. The workman is entitled to reinstatement to his job with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of his dismissal i.e. 23.4.2003 till his reinstatement. Award made accordingly.
11. Six copies of the award be sent to the appropriate Govt. for publication. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (J.P.S. MALIK)
Dated: 24.02.2011 POLC-VII, Karkardooma,
Delhi.
ID No.36/2004 Page 24/24
ID No. 36/2004
24.02.2011
Present: None.
Vide my separate order award is passed in favour of the workman and against the Management. Six copies of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication. File be consigned to record room.
(J.P.S. MALIK) POLC-VII, Karkardooma, Delhi.
ID No.36/2004 Page 25/24