Delhi District Court
Maharaja Agrasen Hospital vs Navin Kumar on 21 July, 2025
LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016
CNR No. DLCT13-000131-2008
DLCT13-000233-2008
M/s Maharaja Agrasen Hospital
Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi. ..... Management/ Applicant
Versus
Sh. Navin Kumar
S/o Sh. Jasram
House No. 120, Type -II, 1st Floor,
E.S.I. Hospital Quarters,
Basai Darapur,
New Delhi-110015. ... Workman/ Respondent
Order reserved on 02.07.2025
Date of Award 21.07.2025
ORDER
1. Present order shall dispose off two similar applications filed by the management under Section 33-2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for seeking approval of the termination of the respondent/ workman from the service of the management vide Digitally signed termination order dated 07.10.2008. GAUTAM MANAN by GAUTAM MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 20:12:55 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 1 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
Case of Applicant/ Management
2. It is stated by the applicant that the respondent was employed by it as a X-ray-cum- C.T. Technician and his last drawn wages were Rs. 7,000/- per month. On the basis of reported misconducts of creating riotous and disorderly situation in the hospital on 19.09.2008, the respondent was placed under suspension.
3. It is stated that the management has got its own Service Conditions Rules (SCR), which governs the terms and conditions of the employment of the employees of the Hospital and para 32 of the Service Condition Rules, deals with procedure for disciplinary action and under sub para 12, "In exceptional circumstances where the charges committed by an employee(s) are very grave and serious the disciplinary authority may terminate the service of the employee(s) without holding an enquiry by recording reasons to this effect."
4. It is submitted that respondent actively participated in an attempt to defame, embarrass and humiliate the President of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital Charitable Trust and also refused to obey the lawful and reasonable orders of the Chief Executive Officer, Medical Superintendent. and Sr. Administrative Officer of the Hospital on account of which exceptional circumstances the Digitally signed by GAUTAM holding of an enquiry at the instance of the Chief Executive GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.07.22 20:13:03 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 2 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
Officer was not considered appropriate, the Chief Executive Officer being the disciplinary authority, decided to terminate the service of the respondent for the reasons as mentioned in the termination order dated 7.10.2008.
5. It is stated that as a measure of abundant caution, in compliance with the provision of section 33-2(b) of the Act has transferred a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to the bank account of respondent being his wages for one month and as a part of the same transaction the present application for approval of the addition of termination of the services of respondent was also filed before this Tribunal.
6. It is averred that the management be granted an opportunity to lead evidence directly before the Tribunal for proving the grave and serious misconducts committed by the respondent and justifying the action of the management in terminating the service of the respondent.
Reply of the workman/ respondent
7. In his reply respondent stated that present application is not maintainable on account of the fact that the respondent was a protected workman for the period from 23.05.08 to 07.10.08. In this respect respondent placed a copy of the order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, declaring him as protected workman. It is submitted that in view Digitally signed by GAUTAM of the above, the management could have filed only an GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.07.22 20:13:10 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 3 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
application under Section 33 (3) (b) of the ID Act, 1947 for permission to dismiss the services of the workman.
8. It is submitted that although services of the workman was terminated on 07.10.2009 but the present application has been filed on 01.11.2008 after a delay of 23 days. It is submitted that the settled position of law with respect to an application under Section 33 (2) (b) is that the termination of services, payment of one month wages and filing of application under Section 33 (2)
(b) has to be simultaneous to form part of the same transaction.
In the present case the services of the workman has been terminated on 07.10.2008 and the present application has been filed on 01.11.2008. In addition to the above the alleged payment of one month's wages was done by depositing the same in the workman's bank account on 08.10.2008. Therefore, these three steps taken by the management cannot be termed as forming part of the same transaction and hence, the action of the management is bad for non-compliance with provisions of Section 33 (2) (b). The management's application, therefore, is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
9. It is further submitted that the management deposited an amount of Rs.7,000/- in the workman's bank account on 08.10.2008. The above amount is only one month's wages of the workman. However, the settled position of law is that the workman has to Digitally be made payment of his pending wages/earned GAUTAM signed by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 20:13:17 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 4 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
wages/subsistence allowance along with one month wages but in the present case, management did not make payment of the subsistence allowance to the workman from 19.09.2008 to 07.10.2008. The action of the management is bad on this ground also. The management's application, therefore, is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
10.It is further submitted that the management could approach this Court through an application under Section 33 (2) (b) only after holding a proper and valid enquiry. In the present case, no such enquiry was held and thus, the action of the management is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
11.Vide orders dated 10.11.2009, both the connected & similar applications were consolidated.
Issues
12.On 28.04.2011, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in both the matters which are consolidated as under:
1. Whether the present application is not maintainable on the plea of respondent/workman being protected workman from period from 23.05.08 to 07.10.08? OPW
2. Whether applicant/management has mis-
represented as alleged in preliminary objection number three? If so, its effect? OPW. GAUTAM Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.07.22 20:13:23 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 5 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
3. Whether present application has been filed after delay of three/ twenty three days? If so, its effect? OPW
4. Whether the management has complied proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of Industrial Disputes Act? OPM
5. Whether management is justified in moving application under Section 33 (2) (b) of Industrial Disputes Act without holding domestic enquiry? OPM
6. Whether applicant/management is entitled to relief claimed ? OPM
7. Relief.
Management's Evidence
13. In order to prove its case, management examined MW1 CDR JS Guleria, Senior Administrative Officer of management. He tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit as Ex.MW1/A. He proved copy of termination letter 07.10.2008 along with postal receipt and UPC as Ex. MW1/1, he proved a copy of cheque dated 07.10.2008 issued in the name of workmen as Ex.MW1/2. He deposed on the lines of the application of the management and testified about the serious misconduct of the workman.
14. Though management examined Dr Anand Bansal as MW2, who tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.MW2/A. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 20:13:29 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 6 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
However, MW2 was not tendered for his cross-examination, and as such, his affidavit cannot be read in evidence.
15. MW3 Dr. A.P. Chaudhari, tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit as Ex.MW3/A. He proved copy of Project Report for Commissioning of the Hospital dated 05.05.1991 and the Service Condition Rules Annexure-VII as Ex. MW2/5 and copy of the Minutes of the Control Board meeting dated 30.05.1991 as Ex. MW2/6. He testified that in his capacity as Medical Director, he authorised some employees of the hospital to give evidence on behalf of the hospital management vide order dated 19.03.2014.
16.MW4 Chintamani Sharma Assistant Manager of the applicant tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit as Ex.MW4/A. He deposed that on 19.09.2008 at about 3:30 PM, workman along with few other employees, including Mohan Lal, instigated the employees of the hospital working in the radiology laboratory and reception. as well as some contract labor in the Housekeeping department, to leave their work place and to loudly shout derogatory slogans against the management like "trust hai hai, union zindabad, management murdabad ". He testified that respondent along with Mohan Lal was inciting the other employees to stop their work and respondent was trying to destroy the property and machinery of the management hospital and obstructing the passage of patients and their attendants and Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN in this regard, MW4 gave a written complaint Ex. MW1/13. He MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 20:13:39 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 7 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
stated that Hospital administration called the police and only when the police arrived could the situation was controlled. The respondent along with Mohan Lal were taken by the police to the room of CEO and other employees resumed their work and respondent was suspended with immediate effect.
17. MW5 Dr Suparna Jha tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.MW5/A and she deposed on the lines of MW4 Chintamani Sharma.
18. MW6 Parshu Ram Yadav, deposed that he gave a statement as Ex MW1/12 in respect of incident dated 22.09.2008 to the Medical Superintendent involving the respondent Navin Kumar. Ms. Naresh Kumari. MW6 deposed that respondent was known to the Naresh Kumari and as such respondent had called him on 11.09.2008 between 3:30 PM to 4:00 PM and wanted that Ms. Naresh Kumari be operated for tonsils on 12.09.2008. Thereafter, name of the patient was added at the end of the list of patients to be operated.
19. MW7 K.Shivaji Kumar, produced service record of employees of management and proved attendance record of respondenr for September 2008 as Ex MW7/1.
Workman's Evidence
20. Workman/ respondent did not lead any evidence.
Digitally signedGAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.07.22 20:13:52 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 8 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
21. Ms. Deepti Singh has argued that due to serious misconduct of respondent, he was terminated from the service and the management in its evidence has proved the misconduct of the respondent. It is stated that as per the established law the Tribunal has to examine whether a case of termination has been made out or not and by leading cogent evidence the management has been able to prove on record the serious misconduct of the respondent and consequently his dismissal from the service. In support of the contentions, management has relied upon Cholan Roadways Ltd. Vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam, 2005(104) FLR 440.
22.On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of workman that the management did not comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 33-2(b) Industrial Disputes Act and has failed to prove any ground which led to dismissal of the respondent. In support of his contentions, Sh. Mohan Lal, Ld. AR for management has relied upon Bagalkot Cement Company Workers Union Vs. Management of Kanoria Industiral Ltd., 2006-III-LLJ-656, Prabhakar H Manjre & Anr. Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. and 7 others 1999-II-LLJ-643., Lalla Rasam Vs. DCM Chemical Works 1978 LAB 1C 1004 and Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. 1999 LAB 1C 1565.
23.Final arguments have been heard as advanced by both the parties. Tribunal has gone through the documents, pleadings as well as written arguments filed on behalf of the parties. GAUTAM Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 20:14:00 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 9 of 28LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
Analysis and Discussion Issue No.1: Whether the present application is not maintainable on the plea of respondent/workman being protected workman from period from 23.05.08 to 07.10.08?
24.Onus to prove issues No. 1 is on the workman. He has not lead any evidence to prove this fact, whereas the management examined MW1 JS Guleria who deposed that the service of the respondent was terminated with effect from the close of working of 07.10.2008 and on that date there was no order granting the status of protected workman to the respondent.
25.It is argued on behalf of management that Assistant Labour Commissioner (District West) vide order dated 21.10.2008 as Ex.MW1/5 granted the status of protected workman to the respondent for the period 23.05.2008 to 07.10.2008. Moreover, the respondent also made an attempt to prosecute the management on the ground of his being a protected workman, which was also rejected by the DLC (District West) vide order dated 30.09.2009 and respondent did not challenge the order dated 30.09.2009 as Ex.MW1/5.
26.It is argued on behalf of respondent that he was a protected workman by virtue of the order dated 21.10.2008 as Ex. MW1/5, however, prior to passing of the order, the workman was already Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 20:14:08 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 10 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
terminated from the service on 07.10.2008. Workman has not led any evidence to establish his status of a protected workman and accordingly, the issues stands answered in favour of the management and against the respondent.
Issue No.2 :Whether applicant/management has mis- represented as alleged in preliminary objection number three? If so, its effect? OPW
27.Respondent has alleged that an application seeking approval has been filed by the management by playing fraud on this Hon'ble Court by mis-representing that I.D. No.65/01 was pending before this Hon'ble Court while the same was pending before Industrial Tribunal-I and as such, application of the management is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Again, onus to prove this issue is on respondent but respondent has not led any evidence to prove this issue. There is no material on record to indicate that management has mis-represented the Tribunal or concealed any material facts which are necessary for the disposal of present application. Thus, the issue stands decided against the respondent.
Issue No.3Whether present application has been filed after delay of three/ twenty three days? If so, its effect? OPW
28.It is deposed by MW1 that as on 08.10.2008, only 'Industrial Tribunal-II' was functional as the Presiding Officer of the Digitally signed by Industrial Tribunal-I, was transferred to the Dwarka District GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 20:14:15 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 11 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
Court as District Judge, Dwarka. It is submitted that on 08.10.2008 the Ld. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-II, was on leave and present approval application was listed for 10.10.2008. Copy of the Transfer Order of Ld Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-I is place on record.
29.By explaining the circumstances of filing of the approval application, management has been able to explain the circumstances which led to filing of present applications. There is no inordinate delay in filing approval application. Accordingly, the issue stands answered in favor of the management and against the respondent.
Issue No.4: Whether the management has complied proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of Industrial Disputes Act? OPM:
30.Proviso 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, allows an employer to dismiss or discharge a workman for misconduct, even during the pendency of an industrial dispute, provided certain conditions are met. The employer must pay one month's wages to the workman and apply to the relevant authority for approval of the action. This proviso is designed to protect both the employer's right to manage misconduct and the workman's right against unfair practices. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 20:14:22 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 12 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
31.It is deposed by MW1 that to comply with the provisions of Section 33 2(b) of the Act, management transferred a sum of Rs.7000/- to the Bank account of the respondent being his wages for one month and an application for approval was filed before the Industrial Tribunal which was functioning on 08.10.2008. There is no evidence contrary to this assertion of the MW1. In the light of the evidence led on behalf of management, it is evident that management had complied with the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) when it dismissed the respondent paid him the necessary wages and at the same time filed the application seeking approval of termination. Thus, the issue stands answered in favor of management and it is held that management has duly complied proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of Industrial Disputes Act.
Issue No.5: Whether management is justified in moving application under Section 33 (2) (b) of Industrial Disputes Act without holding domestic enquiry? OPM
32.It is the admitted case of the management that prior to termination of the respondent from his job of X-Ray cum CT technician, no enquiry was conducted against him. In his affidavit, MW1 JS Guleria specifically stated that on account of exceptional circumstances, the holding of enquiry against the respondent was not considered appropriate and the Chief Executive Officer being the disciplinary Authority decided to terminate the service of the respondent. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.07.22 20:14:28 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 13 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
33. In "Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (P) Vs Management & Others, 1973 (1) SCC 813" Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
We have exhaustively referred to the various decisions of this Court, as they give, a clear picture of the principles governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal when adjudicating disputes relating to dismissal or discharge. From those decisions, the following principles broadly emerge:
(1) The right to take disciplinary action and to decide upon the quantum of punishment are mainly managerial functions, but if a dispute is referred to a Tribunal., the latter has power to see if action of the employer is justified.
(2) Before imposing the punishment, an employer is expected to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders, if applicable, and principles of natural justice. The enquiry should not be an empty formality.
(3) 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 body. The interference with the decision of the 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.
(4) Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order, has to Digitally signed by GAUTAM give an oppor- tunity to the employer and employee GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 20:14:34 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 14 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
to, adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying his action; and it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra.
(5) The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry is that the Tribunal would not have to consider only whether there was a prima facie case.
On the other hand, the issue about the, merits of the impugned order of dismissal or discharge is at large before the Tribunal and the latter, on the evidence adduced before it, has to decide for itself whether the misconduct alleged is proved. In such cases, the point about the exercise of managerial functions does not arise at all. A case of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no enquiry.
(6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction. to consider the evidence placed before-it for the first time in justifications of the action taken only, if no enquiry has been held or after the enquiry conducted by an employer is found to be defective.
(7) It has never been recognised that the Tribunal should straightaway, without anything more, direct reinstatement of a dismissed or discharged employee, once it is found that no domestic enquiry has been held or the said enquiry is found to be defective.
(8) An employer, who wants to avail himself of the opportunity of adducing evidence for the first time before the Tribunal to justify his, action, should ask for it at the appropriate stage. If such an opportunity is asked for, the Tribunal has no power to refuse. The giving of an opportunity to an employer to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal is in the interest of both the management and the employee, and to enable the Tribunal itself to be satisfied about the alleged misconduct, Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.07.22 20:14:42 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 15 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
(9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the enquiry conducted by an employer or by the evidence placed before a Tribunal for the first time, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to, suggest victimisation.
(10) In a particular case, after setting aside the order of dismissal, whether a workman should be reinstated or paid compensation is, as held by this Court in The Management of Panitole Tea Estate v.
The Workmen(1), within' the judicial decision of a Labour Court or Tribunal.
The above was the law as laid down by this Court as on 15-12-1971 applicable to all industrial adjudication arising out of orders of dismissal or discharge.
34.Above authoritative judgment, makes it clear that even if no enquiry was held by management the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order has to give an opportunity to applicant and employee to adduce evidence.
35.Let us examine whether the management has been able to prove the exceptional circumstances and the set of allegations against the respondent to justify its decision in terminating respondent.
36.Set of allegations appearing against respondent in the evidence led by management are as under:
a) On 02.08.2008, respondent made Ms Katuri Devi to lodge a Digitally signed false complaint Ex MW1/8 before SHO Punjabi Bagh. GAUTAM MANAN Date:
by GAUTAM MANAN 2025.07.22 20:14:49 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 16 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
b) Respondent threatened Dr. Rajesh Mishra, ENT OPD, on 12.09.2008, in the presence of Dr. Rajeev Nangia and Ms Hemlata and Ms. Saroj that if his known person, Mrs. Naresh Kumari, is not operated upon before leaving the hospital, his seven brothers would be waiting on the door to make sure that either the Doctor is finished or they are finished.
c) On 19.09.2008 at about 3:30 PM, respondent along with a few other employees, including Mohan Lal, instigated the employees of the hospital, working in the radiology, Laboratory and Reception as well as some contract labour in the Housekeeping department, to leave their work place and to loudly shout derogatory slogans against the management like trust hai hai, union zindabad, management murdabad. Respondent along with Mohan Lal incited the other employees to stop their work, and he tried to destroy the property and machinery of the management hospital.
d) On 20.09.2008, in contravention of his suspension order the respondent entered the X-Ray Department at 12:40 PM and after being told to move out, respondent threatened to inflict serious harm on patients to bring down the reputation of the Hospital.
37. (a) Lodging of a false complaint: It is the case of management Digitally signed by GAUTAM that on 02.08.2008, respondent made Kasturi Devi to lodge a GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.07.22 20:15:08 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 17 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
false complaint (Ex. MW1/8) before the S.H.O. Punjabi Bagh that her husband was refused discharge from the hospital even after treatment due to non-payment of bill. It was further alleged in the complaint that when Kasturi Devi requested President of the Trust Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta for exemption from payment of bill, he insulted her.
38. It is stated that complaint was written in Hindi and it bears the thumb impression of Kasturi Devi which was later on withdrawn by Kasturi Devi on 11.08.2008 by giving a statement Ex MW1/9 that President of the Trust never abused her and on the contrary waived the complete bill for the treatment of her husband.
39. In view of above MW1 JS Guleria, conducted a fact finding inquiry and he recorded a statement Ex. MW1/10 of Smt. Kasturi Devi wherein she stated that respondent along with Mohan Lal and Anil Kumar approached her stating that they were colleagues of her son-in-law Pradeep Kumar, who also was posted at the site of the hospital. She stated that respondent and his colleagues had obtained her thumb impression on a sheet of paper claiming it to be an application for waiver of bill of treatment. She further stated that on the following day, they came with another letter and obtained her thumb impression on it. She further stated that on 04.08.2008, on the request of her son-in-law, her complete bill was waved off by the then President of the Trust. She also Digitally signed by GAUTAM submitted that a week thereafter she was informed by her son-in- GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 20:15:14 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 18 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
law that the respondent along with his colleagues had hatched a conspiracy whereby her thumb impression was misused to lodge a false complaint against the then President of the Trust by the respondent his colleagues.
40.In her statement, Kasturi Devi mentioned that on 11.08.2008 she visited the Police Station with her son-in-law and withdrew the complaint. In this regard, during his cross-examination MW1 JS Guleria deposed as under:
Mr Ram Kumar Gupta, the then President of the trust never made any complaint to me regarding the incident relating to the complaint of Mrs. Kasturi Devi. Vol. I was asked to do fact finding enquiry by then Chief Executive Officer of the hospital Dr. Professor M.S. Gupta and Sh. Ram Kr Gupta, then President might have asked him to conduct fact finding enquiry. The fact finding enquiry was conducted by me sometimes after one week of the incident.........
I did not give any opportunity to Sh. Navin Kumar. Vol. It was just the fact finding enuqiry. No official charge sheet was issued against any one. Ex. MW1/10 has been made in my hand writing. It is wrong to suggest that statement Ex. MW1/10 is neither statement of Mrs Kasturi Devi nor it bears her thumb impression. We are presently extending free treatment facility to EWS category. It is wrong to suggest that at the time of complaint of Mrs. Kasturi Devi, no free treatment Facility was being extended to EWS category. Vol. We had the provision general ward categories for the poor patients as per decision of trust/management who were generally in two categories i.e. general ward with free medicines and general ward without medicines. It is correct that Digitally signed by GAUTAM entire bill amount relating to treatment of Mrs Kasturi GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.07.22 Devi's husband was waived of completely. I have to 20:15:20 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 19 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
verify from the records whether I would be able to produce the medial bills relating to the treatment extended to the husband of Mrs. Kasturi Devi. It is correct that Mr. Pradeep Kr is working under a contractor with the management. It is wrong to suggest that neither the workman is involved in the complaint of Mrs. Kasturi Devi relating to the treatment of her husband nor he was in the knowledge of the same at the time of incident.
Only after verifying the records I can tell whether Mrs. Kasturi Devi had mentioned the name of the workman Sh. Navin Kumar in her complaint or her application for withdrawing the complaint. After going through the statement of Mrs. Kasturi Devi made to the police, I state that name of the workman is not mentioned in the same. Vol. In the withdrawal report Ex. MW1/9, one sentence has been cut and no name has been mentioned. .............
41.From the above deposition of MW1, it becomes evident that no complaint was ever made by Mr Ram Kumar Gupta, the President of the Trust that a false complaint was made against him by Kasturi Devi.
42. It is also evident that no opportunity was given to the respondent by the management to confront Ms Kasturi Devi in respect of her statement Ex.MW1/10 wherein she alleged that her thumb impressions were misused by respondent. Statement Ex.MW1/10 has been solely recorded by MW1 JS Guleria. The statement Ex.MW1/10 which runs into five pages does not bear the thumb impressions of Kasturi Devi on each page.
Digitally signed by GAUTAMGAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 20:15:29 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 20 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
43.Respondent against whom an allegation has been made by Kasturi Devi that her thumb impressions were misused by respondent never got a chance to confront Kasturi Devi nor she is examined by the management in the evidence led before Tribunal.
44. Nonetheless, it has also come in evidence that Pradeep Kumar son-in-law of Kasturi Devi was also working in the Hospital under a contractor and in all probability the complaint could not have been made by Kasturi Devi without his assistance. Moreover, it stands admitted by MW1 that entire bill amount relating to treatment of husband of Kasturi Devi was waived of completely, and it cannot be ruled out that only after waiver of the bill, Kasturi Devi agreed to withdraw her complaint. In her withdrawal statement Ex MW1/9 Kasturi Devi does not say that her thumb impressions were misused or she lodged her complaint under influence of respondent.
45.There is no material on record which indicates and substantiate the claim of the management that Kasturi Devi lodged the complaint against President of the Management Trust under influence or on instigation of respondent nor there is any evidence on record that the respondent misused the thumb impressions of complainant Kasturi Devi and managed to lodge Digitally signed a complaint against the management. GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 20:15:41 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 21 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
46.As stated above, respondent has never got an opportunity to confront Kasturi Devi on these allegations. Without affording an opportunity, the respondent cannot be presumed to be behind lodging of a complaint by or on behalf of Kasturi Devi. Accordingly, it is held that the allegations of lodging of false complaint by the respondent stands not proved against him.
47. (b) Allegations of threatening: It is alleged by the management that respondent threatened Dr. Rajesh Mishra, former Consultant, in the ENT OPD, on 12.09.2008, in the presence of Dr. Rajeev Nangia and Ms Hemlata and Ms. Saroj that if his known person, one Mrs. Naresh Kumari, is not operated upon before leaving the Hospital, his seven brothers would be waiting on the door to make sure that either the Doctor is finished or they are finished. The incident was reported in writing by Dr. Rajesh Mishra, Consultant as well as Dr. Rajeev Nangia, Senior Consultant ENT along with Ms. Hemlata, Nursing Aide and Ms. Saroj. Copies of the complaints made by Dr. Rajesh Mishra, Dr. Rajeev Nangia, Ms. Hemlata and Ms. Saroj are proved as Ex.MW1/11.
48. Admittedly, management did not hold any enquiry in respect of the allegations made in the complaint Ex.MW1/11. In the present proceedings as well, management did not bring any evidence on record to substantiate the allegations that on 12.09.2008 respondent threatened Dr Rajesh Mishra in presence of Dr. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 20:15:52 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 22 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
Rajeev Nangia, Senior Consultant ENT along with Ms. Hemlata, Nursing Aide and Ms. Saroj.
49.None of the eyewitnesses to the incident including Dr Rajesh Mishra have been examined by the management before the Tribunal to prove the allegations. In absence of any evidence, the allegations that respondent threatened Dr Rajesh Mishra in presence of the other staff remains un-substantiated.
50. (c) Raising slogans and Disrupting Work: It is in affidavit of MW4 Chintamani Sharma and MW5 Dr Suparna Jha that on 19.09.2008 at about 3:30 p.m. the respondent along with a few other employees, including Mohan Lal, instigated other employees working in the radiology, Laboratory and Reception and as contract labour in the Housekeeping Department, to leave their work place and to loudly shouted derogatory slogans against management like trust hai hai, union zindabad, management murdabad.
51. It is alleged that respondent along with Mohan Lal incited the other employees to stop their work and he tried to destroy the property and machinery of the management hospital and was obstructing the passage. Respondent along with Mohan Lal were taken by police to the room of CEO. Respondent was suspended with immediate effect and PW4 Chintamani Sharma gave a Digitally signed GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.07.22 20:15:57 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 23 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
written complaint Ex. MW1/13 to the Administration in this regard.
52.During cross-examination MW4 Chitamani Sharma deposed as under:
.... I do not know if any patient or attendant of patient has given any complaint about any incident on 19.09.2008 to the management or not. It is correct that at that time I was working as Public Relation Officer.
No complaint was given to me as PRO by any patient or attendant of patient. I have no idea if any FIR was lodged by police about the incident of 19.09.2008. I have no idea if any call record was preserved of making a call to the police regarding incident of 19.09.2008. The call made to the police on 19.09.2008 was not made in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that no such call was made to the police.
At the time when workers had demonstrated in the premises of hospital and raised slogans, police had come and taken everybody in the office of CEO. It was about 5-6 people who were taken to the office of CEO by the police, these peoples were namely Navin Kumar, workman, present in the court whose name I do not remember, Bapu. I do not remember the names of other persons. Again said, the name of present workman is Mohan Lal. It is wrong to suggest that on 19.09.2008 no such incident had taken police or that police was not called or that the police had not come to the hospital. It is wrong to suggest that police had not taken Mohan Lal, Navin Kumar and Bapu to the office of CEO.
In my affidavit Ex. MW4/A, I have mentioned that on 19.09.2008 workmen have tried to damage the hospital property by that I mean to say that the Digitally signed by GAUTAM workers shouted slogans, thrown chairs from one GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.07.22 place to other obstructed the passage of patients and 20:16:09 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 24 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
forced the other workers to shut down the machines working in the hospital. These machines were X ray Machines, C.T. machines and IITV machines were forcibly shut down. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely in respect of forcible shut down of machines by the workers as the same is not mentioned in any other complaint or charge sheet given to the workmen and the complaint Ex. MW4/WX1.
Question: As you have stated that workers were demonstrating, for how long they did their demonstration?
Ans: The workers have demonstrated for about 30-35- 40 minutes. ..........
53.Deposition of MW5 Dr Suparna Jha reads as under:
...... By hampering the work of Hospital, I mean to say that these workmen were not allowing the patients to enter the casualty, blocking the passage of hospital, not permitting them to get their test conducted. There were lot of people who were hampering the work of hospital, I did not count their number. I do not remember the names of all the workmen involved but as far as I remember workman Mohan Lal, present in the court, Navin and Babu Lal were amongst them....
54.From the deposition of MW4 Chintamani Sharma as well as MW5 Dr Suparna Jha, it becomes evident that the respondent alone was not causing any disruption. MW5 Dr Suparna Jha deposed that there were lot of people who were hampering the work of the hospital but she did not count their number.
55.MW4 deposed that there were about 5-6 people who were taken to the office of CEO by the police, including respondent and GAUTAM Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.07.22 20:16:16 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 25 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
some other workmen whose name he did not remember. Management has not come clear as to what action was taken by the management against the other workers who were allegedly hampering the work of the hospital.
56.It is also matter of record that no complaint was received from any patient or attendant of the patient in respect of the alleged disruption of the work. No FIR was registered by the police in respect of the alleged incident. Nonetheless, if at all the management was aggrieved with the conduct of respondent, the management ought to have sought an explanation from him. In above noted facts, the entire responsibility of the incident ought not to have been attributed to the respondent warranting his immediate termination.
57. (d) Threatening to cause serious harm to patients: It is alleged that on 20.09.2008, in contravention of his suspension order, respondent entered the X Ray Department at 12:40 PM and on being told to move out he started arguing on the issue with his supervisor and the A.A.O and threatened to inflict serious harm on patients getting admitted in the Hospital to bring down the reputation of the Hospital.
58. It is alleged that he threatened to sabotage and damage the Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN medical equipment of the Hospital and endanger the peace and MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 20:16:23 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 26 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
normal medical services. A written complaint filed by the AAO in this regard is proved on record as Ex.MW1/15.
59.None of the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident nor complainant AAO of the Hospital have been examined by the management before the Tribunal to prove the allegations. In absence of any evidence, the allegations that respondent threatened AAO remains un-substantiated.
60.Accordingly, issue no.5 stands answered against the applicant / management, and it is held that management was not justified in terminating the services of the respondent and moving an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of Industrial Disputes Act without affording an opportunity to respondent to defend allegations against him.
61.Thus, issue no.6 is also answered against the applicant/management and it is held that management is not entitled to the relief claimed.
Issue No.7: Relief
62. In view of the above findings, application of the management filed under Section 33-2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for seeking approval of the termination of the respondent/ workman from the service of the applicant vide termination Digitally signed order dated 07.10.2008 stands dismissed. GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 20:16:30 +0530 Order on Applications Page No. 27 of 28 LC No. 1350/2016 & 2018/2016 "Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital Vs Navin Kumar"
Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 21st July, 2025.Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.07.22 20:16:39 +0530 GAUTAM MANAN PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI Order on Applications Page No. 28 of 28