Delhi District Court
Ms. Shika Dobriyal vs M/S. Zydus on 1 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL
PILOT COURT / POLCXVII, ROOM NO. 514 :
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
LIR 2524/17
In the matter of:
Ms. Shika Dobriyal
D/o Sh. Ram Kalra, Age 39 years,
R/o B16B, Vijay Nagar, Delhi110009
Mobile No. 9278047816
through Delhi Sales & Medical Representatives Organization,
BTR Bhawan, 13A, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi110002
.............. Workman
Versus
M/s. Zydus
(A Division of Biochem Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.)
4837/24, Govind Gali, Ansari Road, Daryaganj,
Delhi110002
............. Management
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 22.08.2017
DATE ON WHICH AWARD RESERVED : 19.04.2018
DATE ON WHICH AWARD PASSED : 01.05.2018
A W A R D :
1.Vide Order No.F.24(169)/17/Ref./CD/Lab./884888 dated 22.08.2017, issued by Government of NCT of Delhi, a reference was sent to this Court with the following terms: LIR No.2524/17 Page 1 of 21 "Whether Ms. Shika Dobriyal D/o Sh. Ram Kalra is a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and if so, whether dismissal of Ms. Shika Dobriyal D/o Sh. Ram Kalra from services by the management vide order dtd.
15.11.2016 is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Claimant's case is that she had been working with the management as a Medical Representative since 15.01.2007. Within due course of time became its permanent employee and was lastly drawing salary of Rs. 16500/ per month. She was discharging her duties diligently and hence there was never any complaint against her. Since she was the active member of the union, management was not pleased with her. Area Sales manager Mr. M M S Pundir had evil eyes on her and when she objected, management started treating her shabbily. She was threatened by Mr Pundir in November, 2011. On 09.05.2012, at about 2.20pm, the area sales manager, Sh. M M S Pundir, during the course of joint working, threatened, harassed and humiliated her inside the chamber of Dr. A K Malhotra at Model Town. He used unparliamentary language, threatened her for loss of job and allocation of work at far off areas against which she lodged complaint with management and other authorities. But she was immediately transferred from Delhi to Hapur vide transfer order dated 14.05.2012 which was objected by her. The union wrote LIR No.2524/17 Page 2 of 21 letters dated 23.05.2012 and 15.06.2012 that she was being harassed and humiliated for last seven months and that she had been allocated such working areas where it was impossible for her to maintain call average and doctor coverage. She had also written a letter to Delhi Commission for Women for sexual harassment. Finally, the management retained her in Delhi vide letter dated 07.08.2012 but it was always in the search of an excuse to terminate her service. In this background, it had issued a chargesheet cum suspension letter dated 24.08.2012 on the allegation that she had submitted reports dated 29.05.2015, 05.06.2015, 19.06.2015, 10.07.2017 and 31.07.2017 to the effect that she had met Dr. Sen in Saint Stephen Hospital, Tis Hazari, Delhi but he was no more working in that hospital since 26.05.2015 and hence, she had given false reports. She had replied chargesheet which was not considered in proper perspective and the management appointed an Enquiry Officer who was not only an outsider but also an advocate and he acted as an agent of management. She was crossexamined by him and several points raised by her assistant were not recorded in the proceedings. She was not provided rules and regulations / terms and conditions of service. The enquiry was conducted at Mumbai though there is a full fledged office of the management in Delhi. She was unable to attend enquiry proceedings in Mumbai due to safety and family problems and hence, she had requested management to conduct LIR No.2524/17 Page 3 of 21 enquiry in Delhi but needful was not done. Due to conducting of enquiry in Mumbai, she could not appear in person on every date and could not engage an efficient defence assistant and in this way, the venue of enquiry had affected her case prejudicially. The documents upon which the management was relying upon were not provided to her and one such prominent document was the letter written by Dr. Sen to management that he was no more working in Saint Stephen's Hospital since 26.05.2015. The management had not examined any independent witness before Enquiry Officer. The sole witness was Mr. Kamal Handa who was an interested witness as he is the person who had initiated chargesheet and was behind the whole case. The enquiry report is patently perverse as there was no material before Enquiry Officer to reach to the conclusion that Dr. Sen had stated that he did not see the claimant on which she had claimed to have met her. The purported letter from doctor was procured by Mr. Kamal Handa and has no legal sanctity. Had Dr. Sen written that letter, he would have definitely supported management by appearing in the witness box. Moreover, a doctor meets several Medical Representatives in a day and after elapse of several months, he cannot remember whether he had met any particular Medical Representative or not. She had requested Enquiry Officer to summon Dr. Sen as a witness as he was the prominent witness but her request was declined and in this way, LIR No.2524/17 Page 4 of 21 letter dated 21.08.2015 written by Dr. Sen has gone unproved before Enquiry Officer because the said letter was procured by Mr. Kamal Handa in the evening of 21.08.2015 under pressure and inducement. Dr. Sen used to visit Saint Stephen Hospital even after resignation and that fact would have been proved by her only after his cross examination but the said witness was not produced by management. She was held guilty by Enquiry Officer and the management also relied upon his tainted report and terminated her service vide dismissal letter dated 15.11.2016 which is disproportionate to the proved misconduct.
3. Written statement is to the effect that claimant had started working with management as Medical Representative since 15.01.2007. Nature of her duty was to visit doctors and chemists for promotion of company's products in the area of her operation. She was required to discharge duty with integrity, honesty, devotion, diligently and wholeheartedly. On 21.08.2015, Sh. Kamal Handa (National Sales Manager), Mr. Prashant Parmar (Regional Manager) and Mr. Daman Nakra (AM) had visited Saint Stephen Hospital alongwith claimant and they found that Dr. Sen was not available in the hospital. On enquiry from hospital, they came to know that Dr. Sen was not working with that hospital since 26.05.2015 and hence, Sh. Kamal Handa rang up Dr. Sen on mobile phone by keeping the LIR No.2524/17 Page 5 of 21 phone on speaker mode so that all the present persons may listen to the conversation. Dr. Sen intimated Sh. Kamal Handa on phone that after resignation from St. Stephen Hospital, no representative from the management had ever met him. Thereafter, the management checked the web reports submitted by claimant and came to know that she had reported that she had met Dr. Sen in St. Stephens Hospital on 29.05.2015, 05.06.2015, 19.06.2015, 10.07.2015 and 31.07.2015. She was asked to explain how she met Dr. B. Sen on those dates as he had left the said hospital on 26.05.2015 itself but she had not replied. Hence, chargesheet cum suspension letter dated 24.08.2015 was issued to her to which she was to file reply within seven days but it was filed only on 29.09.2015 which was not satisfactory and hence, domestic enquiry was decided to be held. Sh. Rajan Chavan was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 08.10.2015 and his appointment was never challenged by claimant. Sh. Prashant Thorat was appointed as management representative vide letter dated 08.10.2015 and his appointment was also never challenged. The proceedings of domestic enquiry had commenced on 09.10.2015 and due notice of that date was given to claimant but she was absent on that day and on the next two dates i.e. 20.11.2015 and 18.12.2015. She had not furnished any reason of absence. However, to provide a fair chance to claimant to appear before him, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with enquiry from 27.01.2016 and on LIR No.2524/17 Page 6 of 21 that day, she had appeared. The enquiry was conducted in the language preferred by claimant and copy of proceedings of each date was provided to her. The copies of documents were also furnished to her. Fair and sufficient opportunities were provided to crossexamine the witnesses of the management. The management closed its evidence on 16.05.2015 and the enquiry was adjourned to 15.06.2016 for defence evidence. Mr. Vishal Joshi - Defence Assistant, requested for adjournment on 15.06.2016 on the ground that he would examine defence witnesses on the next date and hence, the matter was adjourned to 15.07.2016. The claimant did not examine any witness even on 15.07.2016 and the matter was adjourned to 23.08.2016. On that day, the defence assistant Sh. F.J. Jerome submitted that the claimant did not want to produce any witness or document and in this way, he closed evidence on behalf of claimant and enquiry was concluded on the same day. The Enquiry Officer found claimant guilty of the charges in his report dated 20.09.2016. She was provided copy of enquiry report on 08.10.2016. The competent authority considered the enquiry report and dismissed her from service vide dismissal letter dated 15.11.2016.
It is requested in written statement that if the domestic enquiry is vitiated on any ground whatsoever, it be given opportunity to prove charges before this court as per chargesheet LIR No.2524/17 Page 7 of 21 dated 24.08.2015.
It is next mentioned that Enquiry Officer had followed the principles of natural justice at every stage of the enquiry. She was provided sufficient notice of all up coming proceedings. She was well aware of the contents of the chargesheet. She was provided opportunity to disprove the charges. First she had authorized Mr. Vishal Joshi, union representative and thereafter, she had authorized Mr. F.J. Jerome to work as defence assistant. It was Mr. F.J. Jerome who had submitted before Enquiry Officer on 23.08.2016 that the claimant did not want to produce any witness or document in evidence. By relying upon the incidents of 2011 and 2012, the claimant is trying to give different colour to the dispute. During enquiry proceedings, she had never alleged that she was sexually harassed by Mr. M.M.S. Pundir in 2011 and 2012. It is correct that she had been transferred to Hapur from Delhi but such transfer was as per terms of appointment letter in which it was expressly mentioned that her job was transferable.
4. Following issues were framed on 15.09.2017:
1. Whether the enquiry conducted by the management is not fair and proper? OPW.
2. Whether termination of service of claimant by management on 15.11.16 is illegal and/or unjustifiable? OPW.
3. Relief.LIR No.2524/17 Page 8 of 21
5. In order to get declared enquiry proceeding invalid, the claimant tendered her affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A mentioning all the facts stated in statement of claim. She relied upon following documents: I. Ex.WW1/1 (03 pages) is copy of complaint dated 30.11.11 and 09.05.12 to management.
II. Ex.WW1/2 (02 pages) is copy of chargesheet dated 24.08.15. III. Ex.WW1/3 is copy of letter dated 22.03.15 issued to management by the claimant.
IV. Ex.WW1/4 is copy of letter dated 29.09.15 issued to management by claimant.
V. Ex.WW1/5 is letter issued by Dr. Biswarup Sen.
VI. Ex.WW1/6 (from page No.10 to 25) is copies of enquiry proceedings.
VII. Ex.WW1/7 (from page No.26 to 37) is enquiry report dated 20.09.16.
VIII. Ex.WW1/8 (02 pages) is dismissal order dated 15.11.16.
IX. Ex.WW1/9 (from page No.40 to 47) is statement of claim, written statement and rejoinder filed before Conciliation Officer.
X. Ex.WW1/10 is the letter dated 14.05.12 issued by management to the claimant.
XI. Mark W1 is copy of letter dated 23.05.12 sent by claimant through General Secretary to the General Secretary FMRAI. XII. Mark W2 is copy of letter dated 09.08.12 by me to the member, Delhi Commission for Women.LIR No.2524/17 Page 9 of 21
6. On enquiry issue, the management examined two witnesses.
MW1 Sh. Rupak Rathore is the Deputy General Manager and he deposed that while doing field work with claimant on 21.08.2015, Sh. Kamal Handa, Mr. Prashant Permar and Dr. Daman Nakra came to know that Dr. B. Sen was not working with Saint Stephen Hospital since 26.05.2015 and despite it, the claimant had submitted reports that she had met Dr. B. Sen in that hospital on 29.05.2015, 05.06.2015, 19.06.2015, 10.07.2015 and 31.07.2015. When Dr. Sen was not found in the hospital on 21.08.2015, Sh. Kamal Handa had rung him up on mobile phone by keeping phone on speaker mode so that all the present persons may also hear the conversation. Dr. B. Sen told Mr. Kamal Hand that no medical representative of the management had ever mat him after his resignation from Saint Stephen Hospital. In this background, chargesheet dated 24.08.2015 was supplied to her and domestic enquiry was conducted as per the principles of natural justice in which she was held guilty. The management acted upon enquiry report and dismissed her from service. Rest of his deposition is the repetition of the testimony of MW2. He relied upon following documents:
1. Ex.MW1/1 is my authorization letter dated 02.11.17.
2. Ex.MW1/2 (07 pages) (OSR) is copy of appointment letter dated 30.01.07 of the claimant.LIR No.2524/17 Page 10 of 21
3. Ex.MW1/3 (02 pages) is copy of letter issued by Dr. B. Sen and a letter issued by Dr. Jagdish Patil.
4. Ex.MW1/4 (05 pages) is copy of daily call report of the claimant.
5. Ex.MW1/5 (02 pages) is copy of chargesheet cum suspension letter dated 24.08.15.
6. Ex.MW1/6 are copies of appointment of Enquiry Officer and Management Representative both dated 08.10.15.
7. Ex.MW1/7 is copy of postal receipt vide which Mark M1 was sent to claimant.
8. Ex.MW1/8 (21 pages) are copies of enquiry proceedings dated 19.10.15.
9. Ex.MW1/9 (02 pages) is copy of enquiry proceedings dated 27.01.16.
10. Ex.MW1/10 is copy of enquiry proceedings dated 26.02.16.
11. Ex.MW1/11 (03 pages) is copy of enquiry proceedings dated 22.03.16.
12. Ex.MW1/12 is copy of postal receipt vide which Mark M2 was sent to claimant.
13. Ex.MW1/13 is copy of enquiry proceedings dated 25.04.16.
14. Ex.MW1/14 (04 pages) is copy of enquiry proceedings dated
16.05.16.
15. Ex.MW1/15 is copy of enquiry proceedings dated 15.06.16.
16. Ex.MW1/16 is copy of enquiry proceedings dated 15.07.16.
17. Ex.MW1/17 is copy of enquiry proceedings dated 23.08.16.
18. Ex.MW1/18 (12 pages) is copy of report and finding of Enquiry Officer.
LIR No.2524/17 Page 11 of 2119. Ex.MW1/19 is copy of letter dated 03.10.16 and 13.10.16.
20. Ex.MW1/20 is copy of dismissal order dated 15.11.16 of the claimant.
21. Mark M1 is copy of letter dated 09.10.15 issued to the claimant.
22. Mark M2 is copy of letter dated 07.04.16 issued to the claimant.
MW2 Sh. Prashant Thorat deposed that he was appointed as management representative vide letter dated 08.10.2015 in the proposed enquiry against claimant. The proceedings had commenced on 09.10.2015 before Enquiry Officer Sh. Rajan Chavan but the claimant was absent. As a management representative, he placed on file some documents like authorization letter, chargesheet, notice of enquiry, reply to the chargesheet and letter dated 05.10.2015 written by claimant to management. He had informed Enquiry Officer that claimant would get traveling expenses and other allowances for attending enquiry at Mumbai. He further deposed that despite notice, the claimant did not appear and the matter was adjourned to 20.11.2015. The Enquiry Officer directed management to intimate her about the next date of hearing and to send copy of proceedings dated 09.10.2015. He further deposed that the claimant was again absent on 20.11.2015. He produced before Enquiry Officer an email dated 17.11.2015 received from claimant in which she had expressed inability to LIR No.2524/17 Page 12 of 21 attend the hearing on 20.11.2015 due to some personal reasons. The email was taken on record and the matter was adjourned to 18.12.2015. He next deposed that it was he who had informed Enquiry Officer on 18.12.2015 that no proceeding be held as the claimant was unable to attend the proceedings due to non availability of train tickets. The matter was adjourned to 27.01.2016 on which the claimant appeared. The Enquiry Officer explained entire procedure to her. The enquiry was conducted in the language preferred by her. She had informed Enquiry Officer that she had appointed Sh. Vishal Jishi as her defence assistant who was busy on that day somewhere else. She had admitted that she had received a copy of chargesheet dated 24.08.2015 and had understood the contents thereof. The matter was adjourned to 26.02.2016 for recording evidence of management. Copy of enquiry proceedings were delivered to her. He further deposed that he could not appear before Enquiry Officer on 26.02.2015 and hence, it was adjourned to 22.03.2016. Sh. Vishal Jishi had filed authority letter in favour of claimant on 22.03.2016. The management examinedinchief its witness Mr. Kamal Handa who relied upon some documents like letter issued by Saint Stephen Hospital, copy of field work planning of the claimant, web reports submitted her and the letter received from Dr. B. Sen to the effect that he was not working with St. Stephen Hospital since 26.05.2015. Sh. Vishal Joshi had taken LIR No.2524/17 Page 13 of 21 adjournment on the ground that he would crossexamine the witness on the next date and hence, proceedings were adjourned to 08.04.2016 but the enquiry could not be conducted on that day due to paid holiday of the management and hence, the same was adjourned to 25.04.2016. He next deposed that management witness Sh. Kamal Handa was very much available on 25.04.2016 for cross examination but defence assistant Sh. Vishal Joshi was not present due to nonavailability of rail tickets. The matter was adjourned to 16.05.2016 for crossexamination of Sh. Kamal Handa. Sh. Kamal Handa was crossexamined on 16.05.2016 by Sh. Vishal Joshi who was not only defence assistant but also an office bearer of the union of which the claimant was a member. The management closed evidence on that very day. Sh. Vishal Joshi had requested that he wanted to crossexamine two witnesses who had issued documents exhibit Nos. 8 & 11 i.e. the letter issued by Saint Stephen Hospital and Dr. B. Sen. He had requested to make those persons available on the next date for crossexamination but the Enquiry Officer observed that the management did not want to examine any other witness and hence, he cannot force management to examine additional witnesses. Request of defence assistant was declined and the matter was adjourned to 15.06.2016 for defence witness. In the interest of justice and for giving fair and proper chance to claimant to lead defence evidence, the matter was adjourned to 15.07.2016 LIR No.2524/17 Page 14 of 21 despite his objection. He next deposed that one Sh. S.N. Kulkarni, the Union Representative and coemployee of the claimant, appeared before Enquiry Officer on 15.07.2016 to inform the demise of Sh. Vishal Joshi. Mr. Kulkarni had undertaken that he would file authority letter on the next date of hearing. The matter was adjourned to 23.08.2016 for defence evidence. On that day, Sh. F.J. Jerome, an office bearer of the union filed authority letter for claimant. The claimant had also sent email dated 25.07.2017 to management that one Mr. F.J. Jerome, All India Convenor, would be attending proceedings on her behalf on 23.08.2016. Mr. Jerome made submission before Enquiry Officer that he did not want to produce any documentary or oral evidence and in this way, the enquiry was concluded on 23.08.2016 itself. He next deposed that principles of natural justice were adhered to at every stage of enquiry which was conducted in an independent, fair and impartial manner. He relied upon all the documents which were relied upon by MW1.
Issue No.1:
7. This issue has already been decided in favour of management and against claimant by this court vide order dated 07.04.2018 holding that the Enquiry Officer had not violated any principle of natural justice and his report is not suffering from any LIR No.2524/17 Page 15 of 21 infirmity.
Issue No.2:
8. Ld. ARW argued that this is the first misconduct against claimant. Earlier, there was no allegation against her. She used to complete all targets since joining i.e. 15.01.2007 till dismissal from service i.e. 15.11.2016. Moreover, the management has failed to prove conclusively that the claimant had never met Dr. B. Sen after 26.05.2015 and so, it cannot be said that she had given false reports. Moreover, she has attained the age of 40 years and hence, she will not be able to find job anywhere else at this age.
Ld. ARM admitted that the management has not placed on record any document that there was ever any allegation against claimant in the past. He submitted that the claimant has also not placed on record any document that she had completed all targets from the date of joining till the date of termination. Regarding meeting of claimant with Dr. B. Sen after 26.05.2015, he argued that enquiry officer found claimant guilty of not meeting the said doctor after 26.05.2015 and for giving false reports. Enquiry report has already been upheld by this court and hence, the claimant cannot re agitate that issue again. Moreover, Dr. B. Sen had himself given in writing that he was no more posted in Saint Stephen's Hospital, Tis Hazari after 26.05.2015. It was reported by the hospital also that Dr. LIR No.2524/17 Page 16 of 21 B. Sen had resigned from the said hospital. So, there was no chance of meeting of claimant Dr. B. Sen in that hospital. He next argued that economic repercussions occur in every case of dismissal from service but that does not mean that merit of the case be forgotten in that shadow. Nature of duty of the claimant was to meet doctors and chemists and to promote products of the management and to make them understand to prescribe those products to the patients. The management used to manufacture only those products for which positive reports were given by the doctors and chemists through medical representative like claimant. She, by giving false reports, has struck the business of the management at its very root. Some old complaints of the years 2011 and 2012 have been relied upon by her just to target the management knowing fully well that those complaints were totally unrelated to her dismissal from service. Due to that reason, the management has lost faith in her.
9. It was held in Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (Ltd.) Vs. Management, 1973 (1) SCC 813 that when a proper enquiry has been held by an employer and the finding of misconduct is plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence, adduced at the said enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decision of the employer as an appellate authority. The interference with the decision of the LIR No.2524/17 Page 17 of 21 employer will be justified only when the findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or the management is guilty of victimisation, unfair labour practice or mala fide.
In ChairmancumManaging Director, Coal India Limited & Anr. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors. (2009) 15 SCC 620, the Apex Court opined that one of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment would be: would any reasonable employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Deputy Commissioner, KVS & Ors. Vs. J. Hussain, Civil Appeal No.8948/2013, decided on 04.10.2013 that in exercise of power of judicial review, however, the court can interfere with the punishment imposed when it is found to be totally irrational or is outrageous in defiance of logic. This limited scope of judicial review is permissible and interference is available only when punishment is shockingly disproportionate, suggesting lack of good faith. Otherwise, merely because in the opinion of the court, lesser punishment would have been more appropriate cannot be ground to interfere with the discretion of the departmental authorities. It LIR No.2524/17 Page 18 of 21 further held that economic capital punishment occurs in all cases of penalty of removal, dismissal or compulsory retirements and it would not mean that in a given case punishment of removal can be discarded by the court. That cannot be a ground for the court to interfere with the penalty. The Apex Court held in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun Vs. Suresh Pal (2006) 8 SCC 108 that the scope for inference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases.
10. From above case laws, it becomes clear that the labour court can interfere in the penalty of removal etc. only in exceptional cases where the enquiry report is perverse or the management is guilty of victimisation, unfair labour practice or mala fide or where the management has acted against good faith or where punishment is totally irrational or outrageous in defiance of logic. Economic hardship is not a relevant factor.
11. Dr. B. Sen had given in writing Ex.MW1/3 to the effect that he had stopped visiting Saint Stephen's Hospital since 26.05.2015. Dr. Jagdish Patel of Saint Stephen's Hospital had given in writing that Dr. B. Sen had left the hospital on 28.05.2015. The claimant had given reports dated 29.05.2015, 05.06.2015, 19.06.2015, 10.07.2015 and 31.07.2015 to the management claiming LIR No.2524/17 Page 19 of 21 that she had met Dr. B. Sen in Saint Stephen's Hospital, Tis Hazari. She was found guilty of giving false reports by the Enquiry Officer and those proceedings have already been upheld by this court. She cannot be allowed to reagitate that point again.
It is correct that there is nothing on the file which may suggest that claimant was ever found guilty of any other misconduct or misconduct of the same nature. But there is no document to the effect that she had completed targets given by management during her tenure. Economic hardship is no ground to interfere in the decision of departmental authorities.
The claimant deposed in crossexamination that as per nature of her duty, she was to remain in touch and meet the doctors and chemists to apprise them about the products of management and to promote sale of company products. She was required to give intimation of her visits to her seniors. To have interaction with doctors and chemists and to evaluate the feed back, she used to visit the field in the company of senior officers of the management. So, her nature of duty was to meet doctors and chemists and to endorse management's products to them so that they may promote the same by prescribing them to the patients. In this way, the business of the management was dependent upon the reports given by claimant. She claimed that she had met Dr. B. Sen in Saint Stephen's Hospital after his resignation from that hospital. Her reports prove that those LIR No.2524/17 Page 20 of 21 are false report because Dr. B. Sen had left Saint Stephen's Hospital on 26.05.2015. So, the business of management would definitely have suffered due to her wrong reports. Moreover, she used the complaints of 2011 and 2012 as defence in the present case whereas they were not even remotely connected with it. Hence, it cannot be said that management is wrong in loosing confidence in her.
12. In view of above discussion, it is held that there is no illegality or unjustifiability on the part of management in terminating service of the claimant. This issue is decided in favour of management and against claimant.
Issue No.3:
13. Consequent to decision on issue nos. 1 & 2, it is held that claimant is not entitled to any relief. Statement of claim is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Reference is answered accordingly. Award is passed accordingly.
14. The requisite number of copies of the award be sent to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for its publication. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated & announced (UMED SINGH GREWAL) in the open Court on 01.05.2018. PILOT COURT / POLCXVII DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI.
LIR No.2524/17 Page 21 of 21