Delhi District Court
Sunil Kumar Goel vs Ms Maharaja Agarsen Hospital on 28 July, 2025
MORE THAN SEVENTEEN YEARS OLD CASE
IN THE COURT OF SH. MOHINDER VIRAT:
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
F. No. 24(1644)/06/Lab./2782-86
Dated: 05.03.2008
DLCT13-000279-2008
POIT NO.: 952/2016
Workman:
Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel S/o Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan Goel
R/o -31, Anaj Mandi, Bahadurgarh (Haryana),
through Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital Employees Union,
52/57, Gali No.-17, Nai Basti,
Anand Parbat, New Delhi-110005.
Vs.
The Management of:
M/s Maharaja Agrasen Hospital,
Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi.
Date of Filing : 11.03.2008
Date of Arguments : 21.07.2025
Date of Award : 28.07.2025
AWAR D
1.The Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute arising between the parties named above for adjudication to this Tribunal with following terms of the reference:-
POIT -952-16 Page No. 1/28"1. "Whether continuation of suspension ordered on 13/7/2002 of Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel S/o Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan Goel, Assistant Pharmacist is justified; and if not to what relief is he entitled?"
2. Whether demand of reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs. 2120-40 to Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel is justified; and if yes; what directions are necessary in this respect?
3.Whether Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel performed over time in June 2002 and if yes, to what amount is he entitled?"
2. Statement of claim has been filed on behalf of workman wherein workman contended that he was working as Asstt. Pharmacist with the management since July 2000 and was performing his duty in a disciplined manner without any complaint. It is stated that on the premises of a false and motivated complaint it was alleged that the workman was found sleeping on 16.01.2002 and 20.01.2002 as per memo dated 06.02.2002 and the language of the letter is also different than memo dated 06.02.2002 give different meaning in respect of sleeping on 16.01.2002 and 20.01.2002, hence, the record is fabricated and memo dated 24.01.2002 which was supplied by management after demand are not received by the applicant. It is further stated that as per letter dated 09.07.2002 the workman was marked absent from duty on 06.07.2002 and 08.07.2002. The workman submitted reply to said memo vide letter dated 12.07.2002 and 15.07.2002. Thereafter, management issued another letter dated 16.07.2002 alleging therein that the applicant was absent from his duty since 08.07.2002 till date, which was denied by the workman vide his letter dated 23.07.2002. Thereafter, management issued a chargesheet vide letter dated POIT -952-16 Page No. 2/28 13.07.2002 to the workman through Courier at his residence on 19.07.2002 and the workman filed his reply vide letters dated 23.07.2002, 26.07.2002, 26.08.2002 and 23.09.2002. However, thereafter, management placed the workman under suspension on 22.07.2002.
3. It is further stated by the workman that he replied to the charge-sheet and requested for documents also which were not provided. It is further stated that a follow up Enquiry Committee was constituted and an Enquiry Officer was appointed vide letter dated 11.10.2002 and first enquiry was held on 23.12.2002 and on that day Enquiry Officer was not present. Next date of hearing was intimated to the workman as 27.12.2002. It is further stated that during most of the dates, Enquiry Officer remained absent and enquiry proceedings were adjourned for about 10 times. Subsequently, the enquiry was fixed for 12.05.2003, the workman informed that on 11.5.2003 marriage of his sister was to be solemnised, so he cannot attend the enquiry and a new date was required to be fixed to enable the workman to appear before the Enquiry Officer. The workman also submitted a detailed reply on 21.05.2003 intimating therein that most of the references in connection with enquiry were served after expiry of the enquiry date and on 12.05.2003 the workman could not appear due to marriage function of his sister on 11.05.2003. Thereafter no information was given to the workman regarding holding the enquiry.
4. It is further stated that as per law the subsistence allowance was also required to be increased upto 75% after three months from the date of suspension i.e. 22.07.2002 but the same has not POIT -952-16 Page No. 3/28 been increased till date. That the action of the Management is vindictive and arbitrary as the workman is suffering till date without any fault on his part and even during the suspension period, the workman did not get minimum wages, which were payable to a class IV employee. It is further stated that in the absence of any standing order adopted by the management regarding the amount of wages payable during this period, the workman is entitled to full back wages with all consequential benefits for this period after adjustment of suspension allowance. It is further stated that there is a willful & deliberate delay on the part of Management in revoking the suspension order of the workman as well as regarding completing the enquiry proceedings. It is further stated that the woman sent legal demand notice dated 24.11.2005 for revoking his suspension and taking him back on duty with all consequential benefits but the same was also not considered.
5. Workman further stated that the Management did not make payment of Over Time to the workman for the period when he worked on Over Time during his service and also did not provide reimbursement of medical expenses. It is further stated that though the workman had applied for compensatory offs on 6th and 8th July 2002 but the same was rejected by the Management and two memos dated 09.07.2002 were issued to the workman wherein it is mentioned that the workman had absented himself unauthorisedly. Through present claim workman has prayed as under:POIT -952-16 Page No. 4/28
(i) Revocation of Suspension Order from the date of Suspension i.e. 22.7.2002;
(ii) Increase in Subsistence Allowance from 50% to 75% after 3 months from the date of Suspension 1.0.
22.7.2002 upto the date of reinstatement, alongwith 18% interest p.a
(iii) Grant of Over Time at least for the admitted period of 2 days i.e. 26.5.2002 and 28.6.2002;
(iv) Reimbursement of Medical expenses amounting to Rs.2120.40;
(v) Reinstatement of the workman forthwith after revocation of the Suspension Order w.e.f 22.07.2002 alongwith consequential service benefits including salary, increments etc.
(vi) Suitable compensation for mental torture and agony suffered by the workman during the period of suspension for no fault on his part.
6. Written statement was filed by management wherein it is contended that present dispute is not an industrial dispute as defined under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it has not been properly espoused in accordance with law by a substantial number of workmen and hence, same is liable to be rejected.
7. It is further contended by the management that the services of the workman have not been terminated by the management till date and the reference, being only with regard to continuation of suspension, demand of reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs.2120.40 and whether the workman performed over time in June, 2002, the prayers, made in the statement of claim, for reinstatement of the workman is beyond the scope of the terms of reference and cannot be allowed. It is further contended that the date of suspension of the workman, mentioned in the reference order dated 05.03.2008 being 13.07.2002, whereas, as claimed by POIT -952-16 Page No. 5/28 the workman himself In his statement of claim that he was suspended w.e.f. 22.07.2002 the first term of reference in the reference order does not correctly reflect the dispute between the parties and as such, the reference, in the present form, on the basis of suspension of the workman on 13.07.2002, is not legally maintainable and is liable to be rejected.
8. Management further contended that the complete statement of claim has not been filed by the workman, as the relevant documents and the list of witnesses, required to be filed in accordance with the Rules and the reference order, have not been filed along with the claim statement and the copies of the same have not been provided to the management. The incomplete claim statement is, therefore, liable to be rejected.
9. It is further contended by the management that the workman has been employed as Assistant Pharmacist since 21.07.2000 and the fact that the workman was found sleeping on 16.01.2002 and 20.01.2002. Even, during the probation period also, the workman had been issued memo bearing no. 3692 dated 28.11.2000 that he was found sitting on 26.11.2000 at 8.00 p. m. although his duty hours were up to 5.00 p.m. for which, his reply was considered and found unsatisfactory and he was warned to be careful and not to repeat such instance in future. It is further contended that as per letter dated 06.02.2002 the workman was found sleeping with room locked from inside on 16.01.2002 at 3.40 a.m. and also sleeping on 20.01.2002 at 04.30 a.m. while letter dated 24.01.2002 was issued for sleeping with room locked from inside on 16.01.2002 at 3.40 a.m. and workman was warned to be careful in future. It is further contended that the record was POIT -952-16 Page No. 6/28 supplied to workman after his demand. It is further contended that Memo dated 18.04.2002 had been given to the workman for sleeping on 17/18-04.2002 at 05.00 a.m. for which, his reply was found unsatisfactory. The workman was again warned vide memo No. 978 dated 08.05.2002. Memo No. 1306 dated 16.05.2002 had been given as he was found sleeping on 13/14- 05.2002. It is further contended that the workman was marked absent from duty on 06.07.2002 & 08.07.2002 without intimation. His explanation was called for vide memo no. 2583 dated 09.07.02 and the reply given by him was not satisfactory and as such workman was treated absent from duty for that date. Workman again applied for leave on 07.07.2002 as urgent work for 08.07.2002, which was not sanctioned, as there was shortage of staff in the Pharmacy. Despite the fact that his leave was not sanctioned, he remained absent on that day. It is further contended that extra payment had been paid in the month of July 2002 to the workman for the extra duties performed by him on 24.06.2002 & 28.06.2002. Vide letter dated 16.07.2002 the workman was found absent without getting leave sanctioned or obtaining prior permission for the period 08.07.2002 to 16.07.2002. His reply dated 23.07.2002 was not found satisfactory. Even he was issued a chargesheet no. 2759 dated 13.07.2002 to which workman filed replied vide letter dated 23.07.2002, 26.07.2002, 26.08.2002 and 23.09.2002, however, such replies were not found satisfactory and thus, the workman was placed under suspension from 22.07.2002 to till date.
10. Management further contended that there is no service condition, applicable upon the management, under which, it can POIT -952-16 Page No. 7/28 increase the subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% after passing of three months of the suspension order. It is further contended that the inquiry initiated against the workman was conducted fairly and following the principles of natural justice and the workman was given reasonable opportunity to participate in the inquiry. However, the workman did not avail such opportunity due to which the inquiry had to be closed ex-parte.
11. Management denied that the workman had informed about marriage of his sister on 11.05.2003 and requested for a new date. It is further contended that the workman is himself responsible for the delay as he has been raising disputes regarding his rate of suspension allowance and now about his suspension itself, thereby preventing the management from taking a final decision on the disciplinary actin, if any to be taken against him. The inquiry proceedings were completed in 18 hearings and only on 14.02.2003, the Enquiry Officer was on leave due to administrative exigency.
12. It is further contended by management that the workman is working as property dealer in Bahadurgarh, besides having a shop/printing press. That the management has been awaiting the outcome of the court proceedings, firstly with regard to the claim for increase in subsistence allowance and also with regard to entire suspension process. It is further contended that during the suspension period Minimum wages are not payable. It is further contended that extra payment for extra work on 26.06.2002 & 28.06.2002 was made in July 2002 and the workman himself applied for compensatory off on 06.07.2002 & 08.07.2002, in lieu of extra work on 26.06.2002 & 28.06.2002, but the said POIT -952-16 Page No. 8/28 request was not accepted due to administrative exigencies but still he absented and hence he was rightly marked absent. It is further contended that the claim for payment of Medical reimbursement bill is entirely misconceived and baseless as the workman himself allegedly purchased the medicines, despite free medical facility with medicine, available to the employees of the hospital. As per the Service Condition Rules, the medical facility available in the hospital is provided free to the employees.
13. The management further contended that they had sent a letter No. 2966 dated 20.12.2003, and asked the workman to produce relevant record, wherein the medicines, allegedly purchased by him, were refused to be issued by the Pharmacy and since the workman had not submitted any documents regarding refusal by the pharmacy staff for issuing the medicine, hence, he is not entitled to any medical reimbursement as claimed by him. Thus, the management prayed that the workman is not entitled to any relief whatsoever and the reference may be answered in favour of the management and against the workman.
14. Replication was filed by the workman to the written statement of management wherein contents of claim were reiterated and reaffirmed and those of written statement were denied.
15. On the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 20.04.2008:
1. Whether the claim is not maintainable in view of he preliminary objections raised in para 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the WS? If so, its effect?
2. Whether the dispute has been properly espoused? If not, its effect.POIT -952-16 Page No. 9/28
3. As per terms of reference.
4. Relief.
16. In evidence, workman produced himself in witness box as WW-1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW-1/A and relied upon several documents. Workman also examined Sh. Mohan Lal, General Secretary, Maharaja Agarsain Employees Union as WW-2, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW-2/A, and relied upon documents Ex. WW2/1 and Ex. WW2/2. Both these witnesses were duly cross-examined by AR for managements. Thereafter, W.E. was closed by AR for workman.
17. On the other hand, management produced Cdr. (Retd.) J.S. Guleria, Sr. Administrative Officer of the management hospital in witness box as MW-1, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. MW-1/A and relied upon several documents. Management also examined Sh. Rakesh Gera, Sr. Administrative Officer of the management hospital in witness box as MW-2 and relied upon documents Ex. MW2/1 and Ex. MW2/4. Both these witnesses were duly cross-examined by AR for workman. Thereafter, M.E. was closed by AR for management and matter was fixed for final arguments.
18. I have heard the arguments and perused the entire records of the case including pleadings of the parties, evidence led and documents proved during evidence. The issue wise findings of this Tribunal are as under:-
Issue No. 1 & 2:POIT -952-16 Page No. 10/28
(1) Whether the claim is not maintainable in view of he preliminary objections raised in para 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the WS? If so, its effect?
(2) Whether the dispute has been properly espoused? If not, its effect.
20. This Tribunal shall decide both the aforesaid issues i.e. Issue no. 1 and Issue no. 2 together as they are interconnected with each other. The preliminary objections 1, 2, 3, & 4 raised by the management in their Written Statement are as follows:
(i) Management in their WS have raised objection that the dispute with regard to individual workman is not an Industrial Dispute as defined under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as it has not been properly espoused. It is further argued that the present reference is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the ID Act as 'Suspension' is not part of the Third Schedule to the ID Act, which enlists the matters within the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals.
(ii) That the services of the workman have not been terminated by the management till date and the reference is only with regard to continuation of suspension and the demand for reimbursement of Rs. 2120.40 towards medical reimbursement and overtime in June 2002 are beyond the scope of terms of reference.
(iii) That the date of suspension of the workmen, mentioned in reference order is 13.07.2002, whereas the workman in his Statement of claim has correctly mentioned this date as 22.07.2002.
(iv) That the demand raised in the Statement of Claim are not in consonance with the Terms of reference as well as with the Demand Notice.
21. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the workman argued that the present case has been properly espoused by the Maharaja Agarsain Hospital Employees Union and the present claim filed by the workman is an Industrial dispute as defined under Section POIT -952-16 Page No. 11/28 2(k) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act read as under:
" 2 (k) - "Industrial disputes" means any dispute or difference between an employer and employers or between employers and workman, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-
employment or the terms of the employment or with the condition of labour, of any person".
22. Ld. Counsel for the workman has also relied upon case law titled as Workmen of Dharampal Premchand v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd., (AIR 1966 SC 182) to state that even individual disputes can be considered industrial disputes if they are taken up by a body of workmen or a Union. This Tribunal notes that the dispute pertains to the continuation of suspension, which concerns conditions of service, thus falling within the ambit of Section 2(k). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jadhav J.H And Forbest Gokak Ltd. reported as 2005 I LLJ 1089 held as clearly on the issue of an Industrial Dispute under Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act.
"The definition of the Industrial dispute in Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act shows that an "Industrial disputes means any dispute or difference between an employer and employers or between employers and workman, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non- employment or the terms of the employment or with the condition of labour, of any person." The definition has been the subject matter of several decisions of this Court and the decision in Workmen of Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) V. Dharampal Premchand (saughandhi) AIR 1966 SC 182: 1965-I-LLJ-668, wherein it was held that for the purposes of Section 2(k) it must be shown POIT -952-16 Page No. 12/28 that (1) the dispute is connected with the employment or non-employment of a workman. (2) the dispute between a single workman and his employer was sponsored or espoused by the Union of workmen or by a number of workmen and further held that:
"7. As far as espousal is concerned there is no particular form prescribed to effect such espousal Doubtless, the union must normally express itself in the form of a resolution which should be proved if it is in issue. However, proof of support by the Union may also be available aliunde. It would depend upon the facts of each case. The tribunal had addressed its mind to the question, appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary and found that the Union had espoused the appellant's cause".
23. Even otherwise in order to prove proper espousal, Ld. AR for the workman has examined WW-2 Sh. Mohan Lal, General Secretary of Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital employees Union, who proved espousal dated 15.02.2006 Ex. WW2/1, and deposed that the present dispute was espoused by the union in its meeting dated 15.02.2006 and format of the espousal was passed by the union in the meeting of union dated 15.02.2006. In his examination WW-2 further stated that he can show the minutes of the meeting dated 21.05.2005, wherein his name has been mentioned as General Secretary and proved the document Ex.WW2/M1. Even the WW-1 in his cross-examination has categorically mentioned that he was the member of the aforesaid Union, which has espoused his claim. Management has failed to adduce any substantive basis or reasoning to support its argument that the dispute was not properly espoused by the Union. Thus, POIT -952-16 Page No. 13/28 the workman has sufficiently proved that his claim has been properly espoused by the Union.
24. Further, the argument of the management that the present reference is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the ID Act as 'Suspension' is not part of the Third Schedule to the ID Act, which enlists the matters within the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals is not tenable as it is the admitted case of both parties that the workman was initially given chargesheet and suspended vide management's order dated 13.07.2002 and thereafter, again an order of suspension dated 22.07.2002 was issued to the workman. However, perusal of file reveals that the Inquiry Officer was appointed by the management vide management letter dated 12.10.2011 and vide Inquiry proceedings dated 10.12.2012, inquiry proceedings against the workman were closed by the management and ultimately services of the workman were terminated vide removal order dated 18.11.2013. This amply reflects that the workman remained suspended for a considerable time and continuation of suspension for over 11 years raises a substantial question of service conditions affecting the livelihood of the workman and can be adjudicated under Section 2(k) of the Act.
25. It is trite law that while an employer has the right to suspend a workman during pending inquiry, however, such suspension cannot be for an indefinite period and if suspension continues for years without conclusion of enquiry or justification, it constitutes an adverse change in service conditions, and can amount to an industrial dispute under Section 2(k). In the case of O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2257, Hon'ble POIT -952-16 Page No. 14/28 Court held that prolonged suspension without just cause causes hardship to the workman and is liable to be struck down. Similarly, in a case law titled as B.R. Singh vs. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 710, it has been held that a dispute regarding unreasonable service conditions, including suspension, falls under Section 2(k) of the ID Act. Hence, the present dispute is an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) and has been properly espoused by the Union.
26. In light of the above, this Tribunal holds that the contention of the management is merely technical and lacks merit, particularly in view of the evidence placed on record by the Workman and the factum that the present dispute contains issue of continuation of suspension for over 11 years, which is fairly covered under section 2 (k) of the I.D. Act.
27. Further, Ld. AR for the management argued that the claimant in his claim as well as in demand notice has stated that he was placed under suspension on 22.07.2002. MW1 in his affidavit has stated that the services of the claimant were suspended w.e.f. 22.07.2002 and the month on which the amount of wages transferred to him corroborates the same and also that the certificate issued from Oriental Bank of Commerce (Ex.MW1/23) establishes this fact. It is further argued that the term of reference, incorrectly mentions the date of suspension as 13.07.2002, which is actually 22.07.2002.
28. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the workman in this regard has argued that there are two suspension orders issued by the management to the workman i.e. letter dated 13.07.2002 and 22.07.2002 which are Ex.CW1/H and Ex. CW1/M. Letter dated POIT -952-16 Page No. 15/28 13.07.2002 is charge sheet-cum-suspension order and thereafter management again issued letter dated 22.07.2002, which is second suspension order issued to the workman concerned. Admittedly, the management has initially issued Ex. CW1/H which bears the nomenclature of 'CHARGE SHEET', however, the same reads as under:
"Since the charges leveled against you are of grave and serious nature, you are hereby suspended pending further proceedings and final order in the matter."
28. Even Terms of reference, issued by Labour Department also mentions "Whether continuation of suspension ordered on 13/7/2002 of Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel S/o Sh. Vishu Bhagwan Goel, Assistant Pharmacist is justified; and if not to what relief is he entitled?"
29. Admittedly, there are two suspension letters/orders issued by the management which are dated 13.07.2002 and 22.07.2002. Since, the management had already issued letter/order dated 13.07.2002 suspending the services of the workman, it need not to have issued another letter/order dated 22.07.2002. Even otherwise, this Tribunal is bound by the Terms of reference sent by the Labour Office, wherein date of suspension is mentioned as 13.07.2002. In view of the same, contentions of management/ management witness MW1 that the services of the claimant were suspended w.e.f. 22.07.2002 does not hold water and date of suspension of the workman is established as 13.07.2002.
30. Moreover, the arguments of management that the demand raised in the Statement of Claim are not in consonance with the Terms of reference as well as with the Demand Notice is POIT -952-16 Page No. 16/28 concerned, as per Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this Tribunal is legally bound to adjudicate only upon the issues referred to it by the appropriate Government. This Tribunal cannot travel beyond the Terms of Reference. Hence, plea of the management to this effect is rejected. In view of above, both the issues i.e. Issue no. 1 and 2 are decided accordingly.
Issue No. 3(3) As per Terms of reference.
"1.Whether continuation of suspension ordered on 13.07.2002 of Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel S/o Sh.
Vishnu Bhagwan Goel, Assistant Pharmacist is justified; and if not to what relief is he entitled?
2. Whether demand of reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs.2120-40 to Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel is justified; and if yes; what directions are necessary in this respect?
3. Whether Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel performed over time in June, 2002 and if yes, to what amount is he entitled?"
30. Ld. AR for the workman has argued that the management on the basis of false and motivated complaint alleged that the workman was found sleeping on 16.01.2002 and 20.01.2002 during the working hours and thereafter workmen was also marked absent from duty on 06.07.2002 and also on 08.07.2002 and since then the workman remained absent. All these allegations were denied by the workman vide his different letters sent to the management. It is further alleged that thereafter a chargesheet was issued to the workman vide letter dated 13.07.2002 thereby suspending his services and again a letter POIT -952-16 Page No. 17/28 dated 22.07.2002 was also issued thereby again suspending his services. The workman duly replied to the chargesheet as well as suspension letters dated 13.07.2002 and 22.07.2002. Thereafter, an Enquiry Committee was set up, however, due to absence of Enquiry Officer the proceedings were adjourned for considerable time and the Enquiry remained stuck at the same stage. It is alleged that the workman could not appear before Enquiry Officer on 12.05.2003 due to marriage of his sister which was fixed for 11.05.2003. This fact was intimated by the workman to the Enquiry Officer, but later the workman did not receive any information with regard to aforesaid inquiry.
31. It is further argued that for more than 15 times, the enquiry was deferred due to absence of Inquiry officer. The contention of the workman is that there is no logic to keep the workman under suspension for an indefinite period that too without any valid reasons and in case management wanted to continue the same, it was required to pass detailed order in this regard. The workman further contended that the management deliberately and willfully caused abnormal delay to conclude the same in order to harass the workman.
32. On the other hand, the contention and arguments of management are that most of the time the inquiry proceedings were adjourned due to non-cooperation of the workman as he did not attend the inquiry proceedings regularly, though he was specifically informed about the dates fixed in the Enquiry through registered letters and UPC. It is further argued that the workman was given reasonable and proper opportunity to participate in the Enquiry, however, he did not avail such POIT -952-16 Page No. 18/28 opportunity and chose to remain absent due to which inquiry had to be closed ex-parte. Management specifically denied the factum of informing about the marriage of his sister on 11.05.2003. It is further argued that the workman himself is responsible for the delay as initially he raised issue regarding his rate of suspension allowance and now thereafter, about his suspension and thus, prevented the management from taking a final decision on the disciplinary action. Management further argued that the Inquiry proceedings were completed in 18 hearings. In respect of overtime, Management admitted that the workman had sent demand notice dated 24.11.2005, which was illegal and unjustified, however, extra payment for extra work on 26.06.2002 and 28.06.2002 was made to the workman in July 2002. Workman himself applied for compensatory off on 06.07.2002 and 08.07.2002, in lieu of extra work on 26.06.2002 and 28.06.2002, which was not accepted by the management. However, workman absented himself, hence the question of overtime payment does not arise as the same has already been paid in July 2002.
33. In respect of medical reimbursement, Management argued that the claim for payment of Medical reimbursement bill is entirely misconceived as the workman himself purchased the medicines, despite free medical facility being available to the employees of the hospital. As per the Service Condition Rules, the medical facility available in the hospital is provided free to the employees. The management had sent a letter No. 2966 dated 20.12.2003, and asked the workman to produce relevant record, wherein the medicines, allegedly purchased by him, were refused POIT -952-16 Page No. 19/28 to be issued by the Pharmacy. However, workman did not submit any documents regarding refusal by the pharmacy staff for issuing the medicine, hence, he is not entitled to any medical reimbursement as claimed by him.
34. Admittedly, the workman was given chargesheet and was suspended vide orders dated 13.07.2002 (as already held above). However, perusal of file reveals that the Inquiry Officer was appointed by the management vide management letter dated 12.10.2011 and vide Inquiry proceedings dated 10.12.2012, inquiry proceedings against the workman were closed by the management and ultimately services of the workman were terminated vide removal order dated 18.11.2013. The management had paid a sum of Rs. 6750/- as one month wages to the workman vide a cheque bearing No. 772751 dated 18.11.2013. Thereafter again management revoked the aforesaid removal order dated 18.11.2013 and issued a new removal letter dated 03.01.2014 and also sent a cheque bearing no. 141200 dated 02.01.2014 for a sum of Rs. 10,275/- (being one month wages) and Rs. 14317/- (being wages for the period 18.11.2013 to 003.01.2014) amounting to total amount of Rs. 24,592/- in favour of the workman. MW-2 in his cross-examination has admitted that after suspension order, the workman is entitled to get 50 % of his salary and after sometime 75 % as suspense allowance.
35. In the cross-examination dated 20.11.2015, MW-2 Sh. Rakesh Gera, Sr. Administrative Officer of the management categorically admitted that "It is correct that the service of the workman was terminated on 18.11.2013 from the POIT -952-16 Page No. 20/28 hospital/management. It is correct that thereafter, the hospital management received a demand letter dated 20.12.2013 from the workman. It is correct that thereafter, we revoked the dismissal order against the workman vide letter dated 02.01.2014. It is correct that as per dismissal letter, we provided the salary to the workman w.e.f. 18.01.2013 to 03.01.2014."
36. Admittedly, the management kept workman under suspension for more than 11-1/2 years w.e.f. 13.07.2002 to 17.11.2013 without completing the inquiry proceedings or paying any subsistence allowance w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Perusal of record reveals that Inquiry officer Sh. R.P. Singh resigned from the services of the management on 25.05.2003 and thereafter, Management appointed Dr. R.P. Singh and later Sh. Sh. Ashok Kumar, Advocate as Inquiry officers to conduct the inquiry, however, the enquiry proceedings could not be completed and ultimately vide Inquiry proceedings dated 10.12.2012 closed the inquiry proceedings against the workman and thereafter, vide removal order dated 18.11.2013 terminated his services.
37. From the above, it is clear that the workman was suspended by the management vide order dated 13.07.2022. While the workman challenged the continuation of suspension as arbitrary and punitive due to absence of inquiry or conclusion for over a decade, the management argued that inquiry was held and the suspension is justified due to serious charges. However, perusal of documents as well as evidence on record reveals that management did not take any effective steps to conclude the Enquiry between 2002 till 17.11.2013. Thereafter, vide removal order dated 18.11.2013, services of the workman was terminated.
POIT -952-16 Page No. 21/28It has also come on record that the workman has challenged his termination by raising a separate Industrial Dispute bearing No. 819/18, which is still pending adjudication.
38. Though, prima facie the suspension of the workman initially may have been lawful, but its continuation for over 10 years without conclusion is unreasonable, unjustified and illegal as suspension is meant to be a temporary measure pending inquiry. If an employee remains suspended for an unreasonably long time without inquiry completion, it becomes punitive in nature which is contrary to natural justice, because delayed or incomplete inquiry violates principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem).
39. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, if the employer delays proceedings without valid reason, it amounts to unfair labour practice under Schedule V. As per Section 10A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, if the delay is unjustified, the workman is entitled to full wages after 90 days of suspension.
40. In the Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. (2000) 7 SCC 90, it has been held that Prolonged suspension without progress in the inquiry proceedings is not justified, especially when it causes hardship to the employee.
41. Also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others reported as AIR 1987 SC 2257 held that where there is no progress in the departmental proceedings and the suspension continues for years without justifiable cause, such suspension becomes arbitrary and illegal and Prolonged suspension without cause is not only POIT -952-16 Page No. 22/28 administrative abuse but also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
42. In view of my foregoing findings as well as the legal precedents discussed above, this Tribunal holds that the continuation of suspension ordered on 13/7/2002 of Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel S/o Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan Goel, Assistant Pharmacist is unjustified and illegal. Once the continuation of suspension is held to be illegal the normal relief is to award reinstatement with continuity in service and full backwages.
43. So far as the plea of gainful employment as taken by the management stating that the workman remained in double employment as he was working elsewhere during off duty hours, as a result of which he was frequently caught sleeping in duty hours and in this regard they have relied upon Ex.MW1/5 to MW1/20 and thus charge sheet dated 13.07.2002 (Ex.MW1/21) was issued to him or that the workman in his cross-examination has been confronted with details of his gainful employment during suspension, which were obtained from the report of a private detective agency, which is (Ex.MW1/31) or that the workman was assisting his father in his Printing Business and also running a Chemist Shop in the name of Surya Medicos at Bahadurgarh and was making an income of Rs.15000/- from that shop or that the workman was having a valid Pharmacy License or that he used to go to Surya Medicose or the RTI document (Ex.MW1/32), are concerned do not hold water in view of order dated 01.03.2012 passed by my ld. Predecessor.
44. Perusal of file reveals that vide order dated 01.03.2012, my ld. Predecessor has specifically dealt with all these POIT -952-16 Page No. 23/28 points/arguments of the management while deciding their application seeking amendment of reply to the statement of claim of workman. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
"In view of above proposition of law, it is clear that if an employee is suspended by his employer, subsistence allowance shall be paid by the employer. There is no requirement under the law which has been shown by the management that for paying subsistence allowance, workman should not be gainfully employed. Once the employee is suspended, payment of subsistence allowance is statutory requirement. However, if any dispute arises regarding subsistence, same shall be referred to Labour Court and not to Industrial Tribunal.
12. In view of above discussion, this Tribunal does not find any sufficient ground to allow the present application at this stage. The same is, therefore, dismissed."
43. It is not the case of the management that the aforesaid order dated 01.03.2012 passed by my ld. Predecessor is under challenge or has ever been challenged by the management or that any appeal or revision has been preferred against the said order till date. Since the management did not challenge the aforesaid dismissal order, now it has attained finality in the eyes of law and is binding on the parties. The management cannot seek relief on the same grounds in any further proceedings as the management is now estopped from raising the same issue again, as it amounts to constructive res judicata. Hence, plea of management with regard to gainfully employment is also rejected.
44. In view of my foregoing findings and settled position of law, this Tribunal holds that the continuation of suspension of Sh.
POIT -952-16 Page No. 24/28Sunil Kumar Goel w.e.f. 13.07.2002 was illegal and unjustified. Hence, the suspension orders dated 13.07.2002 as well as 22.07.2002, passed by the management are hereby set aside. Since, it is noted that the termination of the workman's services is a subject matter pending adjudication before another competent Tribunal, this Tribunal does not express any opinion on the legality or propriety of such termination. Thus, this Tribunal holds that the workman is entitled to full wages (including allowances and benefits) for the period of illegal suspension, i.e., from 13.07.2002 to the date of his termination i.e. 18.11.2013, treating the suspension as non est in law and the said period shall be treated as "on duty" for all service benefits, including, but not limited to increment, leave, and pensionary continuity (if applicable) etc. The management is further directed to pay the arrears of wages and benefits for the said period within 60 days from the date of this Award, failing which the management will be liable to pay interest @ 8 % per annum from the date of reference i.e. 05.03.2008 till its realisation.
45. In respect of 2nd Term of reference i.e. "Whether demand of reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs. 2120-40 to Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel is justified; and if yes; what directions are necessary in this respect?"
46. The workman has claimed Rs. 2,120.40 for medical expenses. The workman claimed reimbursement of medicines purchased due to alleged non-availability from the hospital pharmacy. Management denied this and stated that the workman has availed all medical facilities extended to employees of the Hospital, till the date of his termination, which included free POIT -952-16 Page No. 25/28 complete maternity care and birth of his three children. There is no provision for reimbursement of any medical expenses. The Management further argued that the claim for payment of Medical reimbursement bill is entirely misconceived as the workman himself purchased the medicines, despite free medical facility being available to the employees of the hospital. As per the Service Condition Rules, the medical facility available in the hospital is provided free to the employees. The management had sent a letter No. 2966 dated 20.12.2003, and asked the workman to produce relevant record, wherein the medicines, allegedly purchased by him, were refused to be issued by the Pharmacy and since the workman had not submitted any documents regarding refusal by the pharmacy staff for issuing the medicine, hence, he is not entitled to any medical reimbursement as claimed by him.
47. It is apparent from the record that no documentary evidence/proof of rejection from pharmacy was given by the workman. Even workman has failed to show the emergent circumstances or refusal of his medical bill by the hospital pharmacy. Perusal of Rules (Ex.MW1/14) which specifically mentions use of hospital facility unless exemption granted. The workman in his cross-examination dated 24.03.2009 has deposed that he was not authorised to reimbursement of the medical bills, but his medical file was kept by Dr. Anand Bansal (DMS) with him, therefore, he obtained the treatment on OPD Card and claimed the money of medical bills.
48. Even though, the workman claimed that his medical card was deposited with the management, however, no documentary POIT -952-16 Page No. 26/28 evidence was produced by the workman to show that the hospital refused to issue those medicines or that they were essential and unavailable at that time. Mere production of a bill without rejection proof from the official pharmacy is insufficient under hospital's service rules. Hence, in view of aforementioned facts and circumstances appearing on record, this claim of the workman is rejected.
49. So far as the 3rd Term of reference i.e. "Whether Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel performed over time in June 2002 and if yes, to what amount is he entitled?" is concerned, the workman claimed overtime in June 2002 and specifically for 2 days i.e. 26.06.2002 and 28.06.2002. The workman claimed that he had worked overtime for these two dates in June 2002, payment for which was not made to him by the management. On the other hand, management in their written statement has admitted that the workman has performed extra work on 26.06.2002 and 28.06.2002 for which extra payment was made in July 2002 and workman had applied for compensatory off on 06.07.2002 & 08.07.2002, in lieu of extra work done on 26.06.2002 and 28.06.2002, which was denied by the management, however, workman remained absent and hence, he was marked absent.
50. It is admitted case of both the parties that the workman performed overtime on 26.06.2002 and 28.06.2002, which is not in dispute, as it has been admitted by the management. The management claims that payment was made in July 2002, but no evidence has been placed on record (such as wage slip, voucher, or acknowledgment) showing actual payment made to the workman specifically for the overtime work. Mere assertion POIT -952-16 Page No. 27/28 without proof is not sufficient. Further more, the denial of compensatory off and marking of absence against the workman, even when he was claiming rest in lieu of overtime already admitted, reflects a contradiction in the management's stand and arbitrariness in action. The law is well settled that overtime work must be compensated either through payment at prescribed rates under labour laws or through compensatory rest/off as per standing orders or service rules.
51. In the present case, none of the options were fairly extended to the workman. Thus, management is directed to compute and pay the overtime wages for 26.06.2002 and 28.06.2002 to the workman within 60 days of the publication of this award, failing which the management will be liable to pay interest @ 8 % per annum from the date of reference i.e. 05.03.2008 till its realisation. The award is passed accordingly.
52. Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication. File be consigned to the Records after due Digitally compliance. signed by MOHINDER MOHINDER VIRAT VIRAT Date:
2025.07.29 14:43:45 Announced in open Tribunal +0530 on this 28.07.2025 (Mohinder Virat) POIT-I/RADC, New Delhi.POIT -952-16 Page No. 28/28