Delhi District Court
Sh. Ram Singh vs The on 10 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT- III
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
LIR No. 1647/2016 (Old ID Nos. 190/14 and 535/10)
CNR No. DLCT13-000317-2010
Sh. Ram Singh
S/o Sh. Bhopal Singh,
R/o Village Nayabas,
P.O. Dudhwa, District Sikar,
Rajasthan
Through Bhartiya Labour Union
(Regd. No. 2410), C-54/4, Okhla,
Phase II, Near National Dharamkanta,
New Delhi - 110 020.
... Workman
Versus
The Management of
M/s. Kangaroo (India) Pvt. Ltd.
A-46, Mohan Co-operative,
Mathura Road, Badarpur,
New Delhi - 110 056.
... Management
Date of Institution : 25.09.2010
Date of Arguments: 18.04.2022
Date of Judgement : 10.05.2022
JUDGEMENT
1. This reference was sent by the Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi by the Under Secretary (Labour) (District South), Labour Department, Office of the Dy. Labour Commissioner, (South District), A-Wing, Ist Floor, Room No. 123, Pushp Bhawan, Pushp Vihar, Madangir, New Delhi -
LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 1/20110062 under Section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10 (1) (c) and 12 (5) of the said Act, 1947 vide Order No. F.24 (67)/Lab./SD/2010/6342 Dated 25.06.2018 with the following terms:-
"Whether the services of workman Sh. Ram Singh S/o Sh. Bhopal Singh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; if yes, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. The facts, in brief, necessary for the disposal of the present claim, as disclosed by the workman in the statement of claim are that the workman had been working with the management at the post of Die Fitter since 13.03.1989 and his last drawn salary was Rs.6,150/- per month. It has been further stated that the workman had been working sincerely and honestly with the management as per the directions of the management without any complaint or charge of any nature from the side of the management in respect of the working of the workman. It has been further stated that the management failed to provide the facilities such as appointment letter, leave book, weekly and annual leave, over-time, increment in salary, travel allowance, house allowance and bonus etc. to the workman despite oral demand of these facilities by the workman. It has been further stated that instead of providing the above said facilities to the workman, the management terminated the services of the workman on 11.12.2009 without any notice, charge-sheet and domestic enquiry in violation of Section 25-F of I.D Act.
LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 2/203. It has been further stated that thereafter, the workman served a demand notice dated 17.12.2009 upon the management but the management neither replied the same nor reinstated the workman in services. It has been further stated that from the date of his termination of the services, the workman is unemployed.
4. On the basis of the above said allegations as contained in the statement of claim, the workman has prayed that he be reinstated in services with full back wages and continuity of services along with other consequential reliefs.
5. Written statement has been filed on record by the management stating therein that the present reference is pre- mature as at the time of raising the industrial dispute the claimant/workman was not dismissed from the services and he was dismissed from the services after a full-fledged domestic enquiry on 17.03.2010. It has been further stated that the claimant was appointed on 19.04.1993 as Watchman at a salary of Rs.6,150/- per month.
6. It has been denied that the management did not provide earned leave, increments, bonus and other allowances etc. to the claimant. It has been further stated that the claimant was charge sheeted for acts of gross misconduct and he participated in the enquiry proceedings, cross-examined three witnesses of the management during the enquiry on 13.02.2010. It has been further stated that the claimant was provided an opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings on 20.02.2010 and thereafter, the proceedings were adjourned for 27.02.2010. It has been further stated that when the claimant did not participate in LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 3/20 the enquiry proceedings in spite of intimations, then there was no other alternative left with the enquiry officer except to proceed the same as ex-parte on 27.02.2010. It has been further stated that the provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act, 1947 are irrelevant in the present matter. It has been denied that the claimant was terminated on 11.12.2009.
7. It has been further stated that since the claimant was found guilty of the alleged misconduct, a show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer was given to him which was duly acknowledged by him. It has been further stated that the claimant submitted his written explanation to the said show cause notice, but the same was found unsatisfactory, therefore, he was dismissed from the services vide letter dated 17.03.2010. It has been denied that the respondent/management ever received any demand notice dated 17.12.2009. It has been further stated that the conciliation proceedings were attended by the respondent/management and it was clearly intimated in writing that the claimant was not terminated at that time. It has been further stated that however, the disciplinary proceedings were in progress against the claimant. Rest of the contents of the claim have been denied and it has been prayed that the present claim petition be rejected with heavy costs.
8. Rejoinder has been filed by the workman to the written statement filed by the management reiterating and reaffirming the stand as taken by the workman in his statement of claim and denying the contents of the written statement filed by the management.
LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 4/209. Out of the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court on 18.10.2014 :
1. Whether the enquiry conducted by the management is as per procedure?
2. Whether the services of the workman (Sh. Ram Singh, claimant herein) has been illegally terminated by the management?
3. Relief.
10. Now, coming to the evidence, the workman/claimant has examined himself as WW-1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A on record, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the workman in the statement of claim. He has filed on record copy of the identity card issued by the management as Ex.WW1/1, complaint dated 17.03.2010 filed before the Conciliation Officer as Ex.WW1/2, copy of ESI card as Ex.WW1/3, complaint dated 26.12.2009 filed before Shram Mantralay Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi as Ex.WW1/4 and copy of the declaration of ESIC Card dated 19.05.2011 as Mark A.
11. The management examined the Enquiry Officer Sh. Pradeep Nagar as MW-1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A on record, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the management in the written statement. MW-1 has filed on record photocopies of the postal receipt of enquiry notice Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2, the photocopy of the intimation letter dated 13.02.2010 as Ex.MW1/3, photocopies of the postal receipt of intimation letter dated 13.02.2010 as Ex.MW1/4 and Ex.MW1/5, the photocopy of the intimation letter dated 20.02.2010 as Ex.MW1/6, photocopies of its postal LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 5/20 receipt as Ex.MW1/7 and Ex.MW1/8 and the photocopy of the enquiry report dated 05.03.2010 as Ex.MW1/9 (colly).
12. Management also examined its Director (HR & Production) Sh. Parveen Chugh as MW-2 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW2/A on record, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the management in the written statement. MW-2 has filed on record the photocopy of the suspension letter dated 17.12.2009 as Ex.MW2/1, the photocopy of the returned envelope of charge-sheet as Ex.MW2/2, the photocopy of the postal receipt of enquiry orders dated 07.01.2010 as Ex.MW2/3, the photocopies of the postal receipt of show cause notice as Ex.MW2/4 and Ex.MW2/5 and the photocopies of the postal receipt of dismissal order as Ex.MW2/6 and Ex.MW2/7.
13. The cross-examination of the above said witnesses shall be discussed in detail during the later part of this judgement.
14. Both the parties have filed on record their written final arguments. I have carefully gone through the entire material available on record including the written final arguments filed on record by both the parties. I have also heard the final arguments addressed at bar by both the parties.
15. My findings upon the Issue No.1 and Issue No. 2 as framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court on 18.10.2014 are as under :
Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 2 :LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 6/20
16. In the written final arguments filed on record by the workman, it has been argued that no list of documents, list of witnesses along with the charge-sheet was ever supplied to the workman. It has been further argued that the charge-sheet is dated 23.11.2009 but the alleged misconduct in the charge-sheet is of 05.12.2009 which shows that the charge-sheet was prepared in advance. It has been further argued that no documents were supplied along with charge-sheet by the enquiry officer and no opportunity was given by the management to the workman to file the reply to the said charge-sheet. It has been further argued that the witness namely Sh. Jagdish and Mr. Amit Saini were not examined by the management. It has been further argued that the list of witnesses was supplied to the workman on 05.03.2019 when the enquiry was already conducted and the workman was never intimated about the next date of hearing. It has been further argued that the enquiry officer was biased and a man of the management. It has been further argued that the fact of bringing wine to the premises of the management has not been proved at all. It has been further argued that no opportunity was given by the enquiry officer to the workman to defend his case and the entire enquiry proceeding have been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. It has been further argued that the enquiry report is perverse and against the principles of natural justice. The workman has relied upon the judgements titled as State of U.P. vs. Shatrughan Lal & Anr. cited as AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 3038; titled as Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Barauni vs. The Union of India cited as 2018 LLR 488 PATNA HIGH COURT; titled as Palwinder Kaur & Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. cited as 2016 LLR 1 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and titled LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 7/20 as Vindyachal Security, Detective & Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner cited as 2016 LLR 2 BOMBAY HIGH COURT.
17. Whereas, on the other hand, in the written final arguments filed on record by the management, it has been argued that in the demand notice, the workman has alleged that he was terminated on 11.12.2009, but, in fact, the workman was terminated vide dismissal order dated 17.03.2010 which has been exhibited as Ex. WW1/M15 and as such, there was no industrial dispute in between the parties to the present claim petition on the alleged date of termination and as such, the present case is pre-mature. It has been further argued that during the cross-examination, the workman has admitted that he received the charge-sheet Ex. WW1/M1 and the suspension letter Ex.WW1/M2. It has been further argued that the workman has admitted that he participated in the enquiry proceedings on 16.01.2010, 23.01.2010, 28.01.2010, 30.01.2010, 04.02.2010 and 05.02.2010. It has been further argued that the workman has already admitted that the list of witnesses and all the documents were provided to him by the enquiry officer. It has been further argued that the workman has again admitted that he submitted a long explanation to the show cause notice. It has been further argued that the workman has admitted that the suspension allowance was paid to him till his dismissal. It has been further argued that after participating in the enquiry on 05.02.2010, the workman failed to participate in the subsequent enquiry proceedings on 13.02.2010, 20.02.2010 and 27.02.2010 despite the fact that he was intimated about the next date of hearing. It has been further argued that no alternative was left with the LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 8/20 enquiry officer except proceeding the workman ex-parte. It has been further argued that the workman was given ample opportunities of hearing and he participated in the enquiry proceedings on a number of dates and cross-examined the witnesses of the management as well. The management has relied upon the judgement titled as Anil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Circle-I, Faridabad and Another cited as 2009 (5) SLR 593 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, wherein, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held :
"Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Section 10 - Reference - Premature reference-Labour Court rejected the reference made by the appropriate Government against the workman holding therein that the reference itself is premature for the reason that the services of the workman has not been terminated by the respondent - management."
18. The management has also relied upon the judgement titled as S.K. Taqi vs. The Cement Corporation of India cited as 2014 LLR 57 DELHI HIGH COURT, wherein, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has clearly ruled that a plea of the fact if not taken in the reply to the show cause notice, memorandums and statement of claim by the workman, is not permissible in the higher court and later on.
19. The management has also relied upon the judgement titled as Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. vs. The workmen cited as 1950 83 Page 157 Supreme Court Labour Judgements, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless, (i) the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 9/20 are examined - ordinarily in the presence of the employee - in respect of the charges, (iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter and (v) the enquiry officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report.
20. The management has also relied upon the judgement titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. S.M.I. Kazim & Ors. cited as 2001 LLR 825 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held :
"B. Enquiry - When the delinquent does not cooperate despite opportunities - Enquiry officer can proceed ex-parte."
21. The management has also relied upon the judgement titled as State Bank of India and Ors. vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey cited as 2013 LLR 211 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held :
"Ex-parte enquiry is justified if the charged officer did not cooperate the enquiry officer by remaining absent on the most of dates or walked out of enquiry."
22. The management has also relied upon the judgement titled as Chairman-cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. and Ors. vs. Ananta Saha & Ors. cited as 2011 LLR 673 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held :
"Ex-parte proceedings of enquiry were justified against the delinquent employees since he did not state that he did not receive the notice and the enquiry report."
23. The management has also relied upon the judgement titled LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 10/20 as Chairman and MD, V.S.P. & Ors. vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu cited as 2008 LLR 715 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held :
"An employee failing to participate in the enquiry, despite opportunity cannot claim about violation of principles of natural justice."
24. The management has also relied upon the judgement titled as Biecco Lawrie Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. cited as 2009 LLR 1057 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held :
"No fault can be found in notice enquiry as sent by registered post intimating time, date & venue of enquiry."
25. The management has also relied upon the judgement titled as Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Jasmer Singh & Anr. cited as 2017 LLR 678 DELHI HIGH COURT, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held :
"When the workman did not care to find out next date of hearing despite being well aware of the enquiry against him, it stands established that he had no intention to participate in the enquiry otherwise he must have find out next date of hearing from his representative."
26. The management has also relied upon the judgement titled as Jitender Mathuria vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. cited as 2014 LLR 626 DELHI HIGH COURT, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held :
"When the workman has been given proper opportunity to appear in the enquiry proceedings by submitting his defence, cross-examining the management's witnesses and leading his evidence, it would establish that enquiry has been held properly in compliance of principles of natural justice."LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 11/20
"When the workman himself did not join the enquiry proceedings despite repeated opportunities given to him, he cannot plead later on that he has not been given proper opportunity to participate in the enquiry."
27. The management has also relied upon the judgement titled as Shri D.K. Gupta vs. Punjab National Bank cited as 2013 LLR 1044 DELHI HIGH COURT, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held :
"Employee declines to appear in the enquiry proceedings despite opportunities given to him, holding the ex- parte enquiry justified."
28. The management has also relied upon the judgement titled as Cement Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr. vs. D.B. Mathur and Anr. cited as 2013 LLR 273 DELHI HIGH COURT, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held :
"If the employee does not participate in the enquiry despite opportunity given, principles of natural justice is deemed to have been waived off and employee is stopped to take plea of non-compliance of principles of natural justice."
29. The management has also relied upon the judgement titled as Y.S. Kapoor vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. cited as 2013 LLR 1017 DELHI HIGH COURT, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held :
"When the delinquent employee fails to participate in departmental proceedings to contest the charges, he would not be entitled to claim that there was violation of principles of natural justice."
30. The management has also relied upon the judgement titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala & Anr. cited as 2007 LLR 45 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 12/20 of Punjab and Haryana has held :
"An employee, who has failed to participate in the enquiry, has no right to question the validity of enquiry."
31. Now, coming to the evidence of the workman, the workman, in his cross-examination states that he cannot produce the dismissal order dated 11.12.2009. By way of volunteer, he states that he was stopped at the gate. He further states that he did not make any complaint to the top management or to the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer on that day. He further states that he made a complaint after one week through Labour Union to the Labour Officer. He further states that he was not having any complaint at that moment.
32. WW-1 admits it to be correct that he received the charge- sheet Ex.WW1/M-1. By way of volunteer, he states that he received the same later on. He further admits it to be correct that he received Ex.WW1/M-2 i.e. suspension order through post. By way of volunteer, he states that he received the same later on after his complaint. He further admits it to be correct that he also received the inquiry notice regarding his inquiry Ex.WW1/M-3. He further admits it to be correct that he received notice Ex.WW1/M-4 through the inquiry officer Sh. Pradeep Nagar. He further admits it to be correct that he participated in the inquiry on dated 16.01.2010, 23.01.2010, 28.01.2010, 30.01.2010, 04.02.2010 and 05.02.2010 exhibited as Ex.WW1/M-5 (collectively) and copies of the proceedings also received by him on the above stated dates after completion of proceedings. He further admits it to be correct that he was assisted by Sh. Dharam Pal Swami in proceedings dated 05.02.2010. He further states that he or his representative Sh. Dharam Pal Swamy did not LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 13/20 cross-examine the management witnesses on that day.
33. He further states that the certified standing orders of Delhi were not supplied to him, although, the certified standing orders of Chandigarh was supplied to him. He further states that on 13.02.2010, he reached the factory gate at about 7:30 a.m. and waited till 8:30 a.m. but he was not allowed to enter the premises. He denied the suggestion of the management that the inquiry time given to him was 2:00 pm for 13.02.2010 or that he was not present to attend the inquiry on 13.02.2010. He further admits the letter dated 13.02.2010 by the Enquiry Officer intimating the next date as 27.02.2010 marked as Mark WW1/M-
6. He further states that he does not remember as to whether he had visited the factory on 20.02.2010 for taking the subsistence allowance. He further states that he cannot say as to whether he had got issued the visitor slip Mark WW1/M-7 for his visit to the factory on 20.02.2010. He further states that he did not receive the letter dated 20.02.2010 marked as Mark WW1/M-8 which bears his addresses at point A and B. He further states that he did not write any letter either to the management or the inquiry officer to find out the next date of inquiry. He further states that he is not aware about the proceedings carried out on 27.02.2010 Mark WW1/M-9. He further states that he did not write letters dated 28.09.1995 and 30.11.1995 to the management which are marked as Mark WW1/M-10 and Mark WW1/M-11 respectively.
34. WW-1 admits it to be correct that he had given the list of witnesses dated 04.02.2010 in the inquiry and the same is Ex WW1/M-12. He further admits that he received subsistence allowance till termination. He further states that he did not LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 14/20 receive show cause notice dated 10.03.2010 from the management, however, the address mentioned at point A and B are correct. He further states that the letter dated 12.03.2010 Ex.WW1/M-14 was written by him to the management. He further states that he had received the dismissal letter dated 17.03.2010 which is exhibited as Ex.WW1/M-15.
35. WW-1 denied the suggestion that his services were never terminated on 11.12.2009 as claimed by him in his statement of claim filed by him before this court. He further denied the suggestion that the demand notice issued by him to the management was false. He further states that he did not make any effort to get any other alternative employment.
36. MW-1 Sh. Pardeep Nagar, the Enquiry Officer states that he was appointed as enquiry officer by letter dated 07.01.2010. He further states that he cannot say as to whether the copy of the above said notice was sent to the workman. He further states that on 05.02.2010, the management filed the documents during the court evidence i.e. Ex.M1 to Ex.M23 and the same were supplied to the respondent/workman and the respondent had also cross- examined. He admits it to be correct that no receipt/signature has been obtained while supplying the documents. He further states that Sh. Amit Saini was never examined during the course of the enquiry.
37. MW-1 admits it to be correct that in the enquiry proceedings dated 05.02.2010, the next date was given 10.02.2010. He further admits that he had not conducted the enquiry on 10.02.2010 as he was busy in court cases and LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 15/20 intimation to this effect had already been sent to the workman stating that the next date of workman was 13.02.2010. He further states that the workman had received this intimation same day by hand and his signatures were obtained on document M26. He further states that he had not made publication of proceeding ex- parte. He further states that he had not sent any intimation to the workman that he was proceeded ex-parte. MW-1 denied the suggestion of the workman that he had not conducted the enquiry as per law and principles of natural justice. He further states that he had examined the witness produced by the management and the workman had also cross-examined them.
38. MW-1 has denied the suggestions of the workman that he has prepared the wrong report at the behest of the management and that he had not given the report on the basis of the charge- sheet and that he had not given the workman the proper opportunity to put his case and that he had not conducted the enquiry properly.
39. MW-2 Sh. Parveen Chugh, Director (HR & Production) of the management states that he can tell as to whether the company had issued the appointment letter to the workman after checking the record. After seeing the file, MW-2 states that there is no appointment letter of the present workman on record. He has denied the suggestion that the workman was appointed in the year 1989 on the post of Watchman. He further states that he cannot tell as to how many Watchmen were in the company when he joined the company. He further states that he does not remember the exact date, however, the company had hired the Group-IV security. He further states that he can produce the LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 16/20 record regarding the appointment letter as well as services required by the company of G-IV security. He further states that when the services of the workman was terminated, he was working in the tool room. MW-2 has denied the suggestion of the workman that the workman was turned out from the job after framing incorrect and wrongful charges because of his demand of higher salary.
40. The first point which has been raised by the workman is that the charge-sheet is dated 23.11.2009 but the incident mentioned in the charge-sheet is dated 05.12.2009 which shows that the charge-sheet was prepared in advance. If the charge- sheet exhibited as Ex.WW1/M1 is clearly gone through, it becomes evidently and apparently clear that the said charge- sheet is bearing signatures on 23.12.2009. As such, to my mind, it cannot be said that the charge-sheet is dated 23.11.2009, though, at the first page, the charge-sheet is bearing the date as 23.11.2009. In the written final arguments, the management has clearly stated the charge-sheet is dated 23.12.2009. It has to be seen that the first incident in the charge-sheet is that the workman instigated one Mr. Jagdish, to drop some tool in the toilet so as to block the same with a view to cause losses to the management. It has been further stated that on account of the said act, the management suffered huge losses.
41. The second incident which has been mentioned in the charge-sheet is that the workman brought some wine from some person and drank the same in the factory premises. Several other acts of commission and omission have been alleged by the management in the said charge-sheet.
LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 17/2042. Now, the vital question which arises for consideration is as to whether the workman was afforded ample opportunities to participate in the enquiry proceedings and as to whether the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in accordance with the settled principles of law or not.
43. In the cross examination, the workman categorically admits that he cannot produce any dismissal order dated 11.12.2009. He admits it to be correct that he received charge- sheet Ex. WW1/M1 and the suspension letter Ex. WW1/M2. The workman categorically admits that he received the enquiry notice regarding his enquiry which has been placed on record as Ex. WW1/M3. He again admits that he received notice intimating him about the enquiry through Enquiry Officer Mr. Pradeep Nagar which has been placed on record Ex.WW1/M4. The workman categorically admits that he participated in enquiry on 16.01.2010, 23.01.2010, 28.01.2010, 30.01.2010, 04.02.2010 and 05.02.2010 which have been collectively exhibited as Ex. WW1/M5. He again admits that he received copies of the proceedings on the above said dates. He again admits that he was associated by Sh. Dharampal Swami in the proceedings dated 05.02.2010. He does not deny that he had received the letter dated 13.02.2010. He does not deny that he had visited the factory premises on 20.02.2010 for taking the subsistence allowance. He does not deny that he had got issued visitor slip marked as WW1/M7 for his visit to the factory on 20.02.2010. He admits that he was supplied with the list of witnesses dated 04.02.2010 Ex.WW1/M12. He admits that he has received the subsistence allowance till termination.
LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 18/2044. He admits that his address on the show cause notice dated 10.03.2010 Ex. WW1/M13 is the correct address. He admits that he had replied to the show cause notice vide reply dated 12.03.2010 Ex.WW1/M14 on record. He admits that he had received the dismissal order dated 17.03.2010 in the form of Ex. WW1/M15. He further states that he did not make any effort to get any other alternate employment.
45. The cross-examination of the workman himself, to my mind, is sufficient in itself to demolish the entire case of the workman. I have no hesitation to hold that the enquiry was got conducted by the management in a fair and proper manner in accordance with the settled principles of law and the principles of natural justice. To my mind, the management has been able to prove that subsequent to 05.02.2010, the workman failed to participate in the enquiry proceedings despite the fact that he was having due notice of the same. I am of the opinion that the ratio of the above said judgements as relied upon by the management is clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
46. MW1 and MW2 have also been cross-examined in detail by the workman. To my mind, during their entire cross- examinations, nothing has come out so as to discredit the case of the management.
47. In the light of the above said discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the management has been able to prove that the enquiry was conducted by the management as per the procedure in accordance with the principles of natural justice LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 19/20 and the workman participated in the enquiry proceedings on a number of dates. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided against the workman and in favour of the management. I have no hesitation to hold that the workman has utterly failed to prove on record that he was illegally terminated by the management. Consequently, Issue No. 2 is also decided against the workman and in favour of the management. The workman is not entitled to any relief. The claim of the workman is hereby dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi of Distt/Area concerned for publication as per rules and the Judicial File be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT on 10th day of May, 2022 RAJ Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2022.05.10 13:30:17 +0530 (Raj Kumar) Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi. LIR No. 1647/16 Ram Singh Vs. Kangaroo India Pvt. Ltd. Page 20/20