Delhi District Court
Navin Chandra Joshi vs Ipgcl on 30 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-01:
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT: NEW DELHI
Presided Over by: Ms. Pooja Aggarwal, DHJS
LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010)
CNR No. DLCT13-001225-2010
In the matter of:
Sh. Navin Chandra Joshi,
S/o Sh. G.C. Joshi,
Presently R/o 3328, Kucha Kashgiri,
Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110006.
Earlier R/o G-142, Karam Pura,
New Delhi-110015
Mobile No. 9717062408 .....Workman
Details of one immediate family member of the workman:
Name: Smt. Renu Joshi (Wife)
Mobile No. : 9717062408
Details of Authorized Representative of workman:
Name : Mr. Salim A. Inamdar and Mr. M.H. Khan.
Mobile : 9971136830.
E-mail ID : [email protected]
VERSUS
M/s I. P. G. C. L. (Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd.),
I. P. Estate, Rajghat Power House Office Complex,
New Delhi-110002.
.....Management
Details of the Authorized Representative of the management:
Name : Mr. Vinay Sabharwal
Mobile no. 9810080522
E mail ID of management: [email protected]
LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally
signed by
Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL POOJA Page No. 1 of 30
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30
16:48:24
+0530
Date of Receipt of Reference : 06.04.2010
Date of Award : 30.08.2025
AWARD
1. A reference was received from the then Under Secretary Labour
(Central District), Government of NCT of Delhi vide its order
No. F-24(140)/09/Lab./CD/491 dated 11.03.2010 under Section
10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding
an industrial dispute between Sh. Navin Chandra (hereinafter
referred to as 'workman') and the management of M/s I.P.G.C.L.
(Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to
as 'management') with the following terms of reference:
"Whether Sh. Navin Chandra Saini S/o Sh. G. C. Joshi
abandoned his job or his services have been terminated
illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so,
to what relief is he entitled?"
2. After receipt of the reference, notice was issued to the workman,
who filed his statement of claim.
Facts as per statement of claim
3. In the statement of claim, the workman has asserted that he was working as an Assistant Fitter with the management and was a protected workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, being the District Secretary of theDelhi State Electricity Worker's Union.
4. It has been stated that the workman used to take up the cases of the other workmen with the higher officials for redressal of their grievances and had also made a complaint to the Vigilance LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL signed by POOJA Page No. 2 of 30 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:48:29 +0530 Department on 09.06.2006 against higher officials regarding misappropriation of diesel drums being used in Gas Turbine Power Station, due to which, various higher officers were prejudiced against him.
5. It has been asserted that the management placed the workman under suspension vide order dated 21.08.2006 with a malafide intention, and issued a chargesheet upon him vide memo dated 09.12.2006 with wrong, misconceived, biased and vague charges as under:
That Sh. N. C. Joshi while working as A/Fitter in Maint., GTPS is alleged to be guilty for the charge of misbehaving with his superiors at GTPS.
By exhibiting the above conduct Sh. N. C. Joshi has shown lack of integrity, devotion to duty and acted in manner highly unbecoming of an employee of the company and there by violated Rule - 3 (i) & (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
6. It has been asserted that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.07.2007 which was illegal, arbitrary, biased and based on no evidence and had been given with a prejudiced mind.
7. It has been further asserted that the management imposed the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 08.02.2008, without even considering his reply vide letter dated 20.09.2007 to the inquiry report forwarded to him vide letter dated 06.09.2007, which punishment was a disqualification for future employment and was highly disproportionate to vague charge of misbehaviour with superior.
8. It has also been asserted that the appeal and review petitions of LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL Digitally Page No. 3 of 30 signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:48:35 +0530 the workman were also dismissed due to predetermined mind.
9. It has been stated that the workman had sent a legal / demand notice to the Management on 04.06.2009 to withdraw the office order dated 08.02.2008, but no reply was received, whereafter he filed a claim before the conciliation officer and the dispute was referred to the Court for adjudication.
10. It has been further asserted that after the dispute had been referred, the management orally advised the workman that his case against dismissal from service was under review by the management and ultimately they modified their order dated 08.02.2008 vide order dated 28.09.2010 to the extent that, subject to furnishing of a bond of good conduct in future, the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 08.02.2008 was modified to imposition of the major penalty of reduction to the lowest stage of his time scale of pay for a period of 5 years with further stipulation that he will not earn any increment of pay during the pendency of such reduction and that the reduction will have the effect of post-poning his increments of pay. It has also been stated that the Board had further decided that the intervening period between the date of dismissal and date of his rejoining of duty by him shall be treated as 'Dies Non' for all purposes.
11. It has been stated that the workman had joined his duty on 29.09.2010 fore-noon.
12. It has also been asserted that the order dated 28.09.2010 had been LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally signed by Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL POOJA Page No. 4 of 30 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:48:39 +0530 issued by the Management on its own without disclosing any reason for modifying its order, which showed that the management was harassing the workman for his trade union activities. It has also been asserted that the act of the management in not giving back wages to the workman was an act of discrimination as in similar facts and circumstances, the management had passed reinstatement orders of 04 workmen who had been awarded 50% back wages.
13. It has also been asserted that the management had intentionally and with malafide intention passed the order dt. 28.09.2010 to defeat the reference order dt. 11.03.2010 issued by the Labour Commissioner.
14. It has also been asserted that the workman was unemployed during the period of dismissal from service from 08.02.2008 to 28.09.2010 and was entitled to full back wages for the same. Hence, the present claim seeking that the orders dated 08.02.2008 and 28.09.2010 be declared as illegal, arbitrary and ultra-vires and also seeking full back wages for the period from 08.02.2008 to 20.09.2010. It has also been sought that the penalty imposed vide order dated 28.09.2010 be also ordered to be withdrawn by the management.
Facts as per the written statement
15. In its written statement, the management raised various preliminary objections including as to the reference order having become infructuous as the initial punishment of dismissal from service had been revised/modified to a punishment of reduction LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL Digitally signed by Page No. 5 of 30 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:48:46 +0530 to the lowest stage of time scale for a period of 05 years and the surviving dispute in respect of the punishment of reduction to the lowest stage of time scale for a period of 05 years did not fall within the definition of Industrial Dispute unless espoused by a substantial body of the workmen of the management or by a trade union. It has been asserted that with there being no espousal, there was no industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
16. On merits, the management did not dispute the factum of the workman being its employee or the factum of him having been dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2008. However, it has been denied that the workman was a protected workman and it has been asserted that neither the Delhi State Electricity Workers Union was recognized by the management nor the workman was ever recognized as a protected Workman. It has been asserted that the charges against the workman were wholly proved in the departmental inquiry which had been held validly. The averments in respect of malafide intention etc. have been denied but it has not been disputed that the inquiry report was submitted on 23.07.2007 nor has it been disputed that the penalty of dismissal of service had been imposed upon the workman vide order dated 08.02.2008. It has also not been disputed that the workman had made an appeal, review petition, which had been dismissed. The factum of the workman having sent the legal notice on 04.06.2009 has also not been disputed.
17. It has been asserted that the workman had filed a review petition dated 22.04.2010, which was considered by the Board of the LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL signed by POOJA Page No. 6 of 30 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:48:52 +0530 management/ reviewing authority in its meeting dated 15.09.2010, which decided to modify the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on him by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 08.02.2008, subject to furnishing a bond of good conduct in future. It has also been stated that the Board modified the penalty of dismissal from service to major penalty of "reduction to the lowest stage of his time scale of pay for a period of 5 years with further stipulation that he will not earn any increment of pay during the period of such reduction and that the reduction will have the effect of post-poning his future increments of pay." It has also been stated that the Board further decided that the intervening period between the date of dismissal and date of his rejoining of the duty by him shall be treated as 'Dies Non' for all purposes and that the decision of the Board was communicated to the workman vide order dated 28.09.2010.
Other averments made in the statement of claim have been denied and rejection of claim has been sought.
Facts as per rejoinder
18. In his rejoinder, the workman denied the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the contents of his claim. It has been stated that after the workman had joined his duty, he was again dismissed from service on some other charge, which proved that the management was highly prejudiced against him.
19. Thereafter, a corrigendum was received on 01.02.2013 from the then Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central District), Government of NCT of Delhi vide Corrigendum No. F-24(140)/09/ Lab./CD/489 to 493/162 dated 29.01.2013 in LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL signed by Page No. 7 of 30 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:48:59 +0530 respect of the name of the workman and the reference was directed to read as under:
"Whether Sh. Navin Chandra Joshi S/o Late Sh. G. C. Joshi abandoned his job or his services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
Issues
20. The following issues were framed by the then Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 27.08.2014:
1. Whether the reference order has become infructuous in view of modification of the penalty of termination by the management? OPM
2. Whether the dispute has been validly espoused? If not, its effect? OPW
3. Whether on the date of alleged termination i.e. on 08.02.08, the claimant was a 'protected workman'?OPW
4. Whether the enquiry conducted by the management against the workman was in violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, bad?OPW
5. As per terms of reference.
Workman Evidence
21. The workman tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.WW1/A and also relied upon the following documents i.e. S.No Description of Document Exhibit/Mark
1. Memorandum dated 19.12.2006 Ex. WW1/1 with its enclosure
2. Letter dated 06.09.2007 Ex. WW1/2
3. Enquiry report dated 20.07.2007 Ex. WW1/3
4. His reply dated 20.09.2007 Ex. WW1/4
5. Order of disciplinary authority Ex. WW1/5 dated 08.02.2008
6. Appeal dated 03.04.2008 Ex. WW1/6 Digitally LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) signed by Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL POOJA Page No. 8 of 30 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:49:04 +0530
7. Order of appellate authority dated Ex. WW1/7 03.12.2008
8. Review petition dated 17.12.2008 Ex. WW1/8
9. Order of revisionary authority Ex. WW1/9 dated 30.04.2009
10. Request for review dated Ex. WW1/10 22.04.2010
11. Demand notice dated 04.06.2009 Ex.WW1/11
12. Joining report dated 15.10.2010 Ex. WW1/12
13. Attendance statement Ex. WW1/13
14. Order dated 28.09.2010 of Director Ex. WW1/14 (HR)
22. He was partly cross-examined on behalf of the management on 04.04.2016, whereafter, vide order dated 16.08.2016, the inquiry issue was directed to be treated as a preliminary issue and it was also directed that Ex. WW1/A shall be treated as affidavit in evidence only on inquiry issue and not on any other issue. Thereafter, the workman was duly cross-examined only on the inquiry issue and workman evidence on inquiry was closed.
23. On the inquiry issue, the management examined MW1 Mr. Anil Kumar Goyal, Enquiry Officer, who was examined in the Court wherein, inter-alia, he relied upon the inquiry report already Ex. WW1/3 (Colly.). His further examination-in-chief was deferred for want of the inquiry proceedings record, however, he did not reappear despite repeated issuance of summons and his evidence was closed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 28.09.2019.
24. The management also examined MW-2 Mr. Ravi Kumar Aggarwal, Presenting Officer, who tendered his evidence by way LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL signed by Page No. 9 of 30 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:49:09 +0530 of affidavit Ex. MW2/A and relied upon the copy of the inquiry record i.e. Ex. MW2/1. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the workman.
25. Vide order dated 23.12.2020, the Ld. Predecessor decided the enquiry issue in favour of the workman and against the management and the matter was listed for workman evidence on the remaining issues. On 07.04.2021, the Authorized Representative for the workman gave a statement to the effect that she adopted the earlier evidence on behalf of remaining issues and on 27.08.2021, she stated that the workman had already completed his evidence. Workman Evidence was closed vide order dated 27.08.2021 itself.
26. Thereafter, the management examined only one witness i.e. MW-3 Mr. N.K. Dhyani, who was duly cross-examined on behalf of the workman.
27. At the stage of final arguments, an application was filed by the workman seeking clarification to the effect that the affidavit dated 04.09.2015(Ex.WW1/A) formed a part of workman evidence and he also sought directions to recall the order dated 27.08.2021 as well as to reopen his evidence for limited purpose of his cross-examination. The application was dismissed vide order dated 16.08.2024.
Final Arguments
28. Final arguments were then advanced by Mr. Salim A. Inamdar, Ld. Authorized Representative for the workman and Mr. Vinay LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL signed by Page No. 10 of 30 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:49:14 +0530 Sabharwal, Ld. Authorized Representative for the management.
29. It has been argued on behalf of the management that the industrial dispute had been raised by the workman challenging his dismissal from service, but during the pendency thereof, his punishment had been modified/ reduced as he had applied for a review, and as the original punishment of dismissal was substituted by a lesser penalty, the original punishment order became non-existent and unless the reference order covered the challenge to the reviewed order dated 28.09.2010, the reference would have to be treated as redundant and the court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute pertaining to the merits of the punishment contained in the reviewed order. It has also been argued that the Labour Court could not adjudicate any dispute beyond the purview of the reference.
30. On the other hand, AR for the workman has argued that no evidence has been led by the management which also did not produce any documentary evidence or cited any law to prove that the reference had become infructuous. It has been argued that even the corrigendum dated 29.01.2013 issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner (CD) in continuation of the reference order dated 11.03.2010 showed that the appropriate authority still treated the industrial dispute as valid and subsisting in the year 2013 and did not consider it to be infructuous.
31. It has been argued that the reference made under Sections 10 (1)
(c) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 records the satisfaction of the appropriate authority that an industrial dispute LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL signed by Page No. 11 of 30 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:49:19 +0530 in respect of the matters specified in the schedule existed between Sh. Navin Chandra Joshi and M/s IPGCL, which needed to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court of Delhi for adjudication, and as clause 3 of the Second Schedule specifically mentions that the "Discharge or dismissal of workmen including reinstatement of, or grant of relief to, workman wrongfully dismissed" is a matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, all aspects arising out of the dismissal of the workmen, including reinstatement, are within the powers of this Court including the subsequent modification of punishment by the management.
32. It has also been argued on behalf of the management that when a dispute pertains to punishment other than that of termination of services, a valid espousal is required as under section 2k of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a dispute acquires the character of an Industrial Dispute only when it acquires the status of the collective dispute i.e. an individual's cause is espoused by the workman collectively to give it a shape of the collective dispute. It has been argued that as the punishment of the dismissal of the workman had been recalled and substituted by the punishment of stoppage of increments etc., the dispute challenging dismissal from service had become infructuous, and for challenge to the lesser penalty, espousal was necessary.
33. On the other hand, AR for the workman has argued that the issue of espousal does not arise in this case, since the reference is of an industrial dispute as defined by Section 2A and not Section 2(k) of the Act. It has been further argued that the present reference is Digitally LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) signed by POOJA Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 12 of 30 AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:49:24 +0530 a valid reference and there is no legal requirement for espousal after the introduction of Section 2A in the Act.
34. It had also been argued on behalf of the management that in The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Limited v/s The Management and Ors (1973) 1 SCC 813, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression 'materials on record' referred to in the Proviso to the Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not confined only to the materials which were available at the domestic enquiry and they take in- (1) the evidence taken by the management at the enquiry and proceedings of the enquiry, or (2) the above evidence, and in addition, any further evidence lead before the Tribunal, or (3) evidence placed before the Tribunal for the first time in support of the action taken by an employer as well as the evidence adduced by the workman contra. It was thus argued that in view of the same, the evidence led by the management at this stage of enquiry was also to be considered and as the testimony of the six witnesses who had been examined by the management during the enquiry clearly established the misconduct on the part of the workman when read along with the additional evidence of MW3 N.K. Dhyani, there was enough material on record on the part of the management to establish the charges against the workman on the basis of preponderance of probability.
35. On the other hand, the AR for the workman has argued to the effect that as per the settled proposition of law, once the inquiry has been set aside, the management could not be permitted to rely on its evidence led during the enquiry and they had to prove Digitally LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) signed by POOJA Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 13 of 30 AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:49:30 +0530 the misconduct on the basis of fresh evidence, which they have failed to do since the testimony of MW3 Sh. N.K. Dhyani is not sufficient to prove any misconduct of the workman.
36. During the course of the final arguments, Ld. AR for the workman relied upon the following judgments:
i. M/s Hindustan Foundry Products Ltd. v. Gen. Secretary Trichur Engg. Workers Union, 2007 SCC Online Ker 357 ii. Joseph Niranjan Kumar Pradhan v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, (1977) ILJJ 36 Ori. iii. Indraprastha Power Generation Company Ltd v. Rama Kant Sharma and Anr, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 267. iv. The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The Management and Others (1973) 1 SCC 813.
v. Union of India Vs. H.C. Goel 1963 SCC Online SC 16 vi. Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Others (1999) 2 SCC 10.
vii. Anil Gilurker Vs. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Another (2011) 14 SCC 379 viii. Union of India and Ors. Vs. Gyan Ghand Chattar (2009) 12 SCC 78 ix. Raghubir Singh Vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar, (2014) 10 SCC 301.
37. Ld. AR for the management relied upon the following judgments :
i. Mukand Ltd vs. Mukand Staff & Officers Association in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 3905.
ii. Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs State of Jharkhand and others (2014) 1 SCC 536.
iii. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and Ors. AIR 1967 SC 469.
iv. Oshiar Prasad and Ors. v. The Employers in relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of BCCL, (2015) 4 SCC 71.
v. Management of Hotel Samrat Vs. Govt. of NCT and Ors (2007) 2 LLJ 950 DEL vi. Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd., LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL signed by Page No. 14 of 30 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:49:35 +0530 v. Management, (1973) 1 SCC 813.
vii. Employers Management West Bokaro Colliery of Tisco Ltd.
Vs. Concerned Workman, Ram Parvesh Singh of Civil Appeal-892/2008 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Issue Wise Findings
38. The final arguments as advanced have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record and after careful consideration of the same, issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1: Whether the reference order has become infructuous in view of modification of the penalty of termination by the management? OPM
39. The onus to prove this issue was on the management.
40. At the very outset, it is noted that it is not in dispute that the services of the workman had been terminated by the management by way of dismissal vide order dated 08.02.2008 i.e. Ex.WW1/5 on the ground of gross misconduct and gross indiscipline.
41. It is also not in dispute that as on the date of reference i.e. as on 11.03.2010, the punishment of the workman of dismissal from service was subsisting, but the punishment of dismissal was subsequently reviewed by the management vide its order dated 28.09.2010 i.e. Ex WW1/14 from dismissal from service, subject to furnishing of a bond of good conduct in future, to imposition of the major penalty of reduction to the lowest stage of his time scale of pay for a period of 5 years with further stipulation that he will not earn any increment of pay during the pendency of such reduction and that the reduction will have the effect of post- poning his increments of pay and the Board further decided that LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL signed by Page No. 15 of 30 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:49:40 +0530 the intervening period between the date of dismissal and date of his rejoining of duty by him shall be treated as 'Dies Non' for all purposes.
42. It is a settled proposition of law that jurisdictional facts have to be determined as on the date of institution of the proceedings and not on the basis of subsequent developments. (Ref: Indraprastha Power Generation Company Ltd. v. Rama Kant Sharma, decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 5266/2011 on 21.02.2013).
43. There is no dispute that as on the date of reference, the dispute which was existing between the parties was regarding the justification of the termination of the service of the workman by the management vide order dated 08.02.2008 i.e. Ex WW1/5 and even the reference at hand has been received, inter-alia, in respect of determining the legality and justifiability of the termination from services.
44. It is borne in mind that justifiability of an action entails examination of the very grounds / factors considering which the decision has been taken/outcome has been arrived at not and only the final decision/outcome. Although the management has contended that the subsequent reduction of punishment has rendered the reference infructuous, it has failed to bring on record any judicial precedent nor has it drawn the attention of this Court to any statutory rule or provision of law to demonstrate as to how that subsequent act of the management in passing the review order Ex.WW1/14 renders the original reference as Digitally LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) signed by POOJA Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 16 of 30 AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:49:46 +0530 infructuous, as the review order is only limited to the modification of the nature of punishment, but there is nothing to indicate whether the very justifiability of the punishment of termination/ dismissal has been reviewed in respect of the existence or otherwise of the grounds of the imposition of the punishment itself.
45. That being so, the subsequent act of the management in reducing the penalty of the workman does not render the reference as received as infructuous, as the industrial dispute regarding termination was still subsisting as on the date of reference, and thus this court retains the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute pertaining to determining the legality and/ of justifiability of the termination order.
46. Even otherwise, to hold that the mere review of the punishment by the management is sufficient to render the reference infructuous would also amount to harassment to the workman as it would be wholly unjust to require the workman to repeatedly seek redressal afresh each time the management chooses to pass a review order.
47. In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this issue is decided against the management and in favour of the workman.
Issue No. 2. Whether the dispute has been validly espoused? If not, its effect? OPW
48. The onus to prove this issue was upon the workman.
49. It is duly noted that all disputes regarding discharge, dismissal, LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL Digitally signed by Page No. 17 of 30 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:49:52 +0530 retrenchment or termination of the workman as well as any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination have been deemed to be an industrial dispute under Section 2A(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, notwithstanding the fact that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to that dispute.
50. That is to say that even if there is no espousal of the dispute by any union, a dispute regarding discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination as well as any dispute or difference between a workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination raised by a single workman would be deemed to be an industrial dispute and it is only for the disputes which are not so covered under Section 2A (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that espousal would be necessary.
51. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Lord Krishna Textile Mills/ National Textile Corporation Ltd. v Rampal Singh , W.P. (C) 4468/2014, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that:
"21. A perusal of this Section shows that the dispute regarding discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of the workman and any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination is deemed to be an industrial dispute under Section 2A (1) of the ID Act notwithstanding the fact that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to that dispute. Further, as per sub-section 2 of Section 2A of the ID Act, such a workman as aforementioned is empowered to directly approach the labour court or a tribunal for adjudication of the dispute as referred in Section 2A(1). However, in the cases of disputes not falling under sub-section 1 of the said Section, the position is the same as LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL Digitally signed by Page No. 18 of 30 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:49:57 +0530 that before the 1965 amendment. For the disputes not covered under Section 2A (1) of the ID Act, its espousal must still be through a Union or a substantial number of fellow workmen.
22. What is observed from above is that the disputes falling under the categories specified under Section 2A of the ID Act are industrial disputes and all other kinds of disputes unless they are espoused properly through a substantial number of fellow workmen would fall under the category of "individual disputes" which are not a subject matter of concern under the ID Act. Clearly, individual disputes cannot be adjudicated and decided under the ID Act as they do not fall under the definition of the expression "industrial disputes" as defined under Section 2(k) thereof.
(Emphasis supplied)
52. As already noted, the reference which had been received in this case is in respect of the determination as to the legality and/ of justifiability of the termination of the services of the workman.
53. Though it has been contended by the management that the surviving dispute between the parties was only in respect of the subsequently reduced penalty, which subject matter of dispute did not fall with the definition of industrial dispute unless espoused by a substantial body of workmen of the management or by a union, the argument pre-supposes that the nature of the dispute can change even after reference, no legal proposition or rule has been brought on record by the management to support such interpretation.
54. As already discussed in issue no.1, the subsequent reduction in penalty has not rendered the present reference as infructuous nor changed the nature of dispute between the parties. That being so, considering that the workman had been dismissed by the management vide order dated 08.02.2008 and dismissal is one of the grounds covered under Section 2A(1) of Industrial Disputes LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally signed by Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL POOJA Page No. 19 of 30 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:50:03 +0530 Act, 1947, the espousal of the dispute of the workman was not required especially in a case arising out of a reference, and consequently the question of the dispute being validly espoused does not arise. This issue is accordingly decided.
Issue No. 3. Whether on the date of alleged termination i.e. on 08.02.08, the claimant was a 'protected workman'?OPW
55. The onus to prove this issue was upon the workman. However, the workman did not lead any evidence in respect of the same, and even during the course of final arguments, in its written arguments as well as at the time of oral arguments, Ld AR for the workman fairly stated that the workman did not wish to press this issue since he has not led any evidence in support of the same. In view thereof, with the workman not having led any evidence, to discharge his onus in respect of this issue, this issue is decided against him and in favour of the management.
Issue No.4. Whether the enquiry conducted by the management against the workman was in violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, bad? OPW
56. This issue has already been decided by the Ld Predecessor, in favour of the workman and against the management vide order dated 23.12.2020.
57. In Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd., v. Management, (1973) 1 SCC 813), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"37...... As pointed out by this Court in the decision just referred to above, it is open to the Tribunal to deal with the validity of the domestic enquiry, if one has been held as a preliminary issue. If its finding on the subject is in favour of the management, then there will be no occasion for additional evidence being cited by the LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL Digitally Page No. 20 of 30 signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:50:07 +0530 management. But if the finding on this issue is against the management, the Tribunal will have to give the employer an opportunity to cite additional evidence justifying his action. This right in the management to sustain its order by adducing independent evidence before the Tribunal, if no enquiry has been held or if the enquiry is held to be defective, has bean given judicial recognition over a long period of years.
38. All parties are agreed that even after Section 11A, the employer and employee can adduce evidence regarding the legality or validity of the domestic enquiry, if one had been held by an employer.
39. Having held that the right of the employer to adduce evidence continues even under the new section, it is needless to state that, when such evidence is adduced for the first time, it is the Tribunal which has to be satisfied on such evidence about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned. The law, as laid down by this Court that under such circumstances the issue about the merits of the impugned order of dismissal or discharge is at large before the Tribunal and that it has to decide for itself whether the misconduct alleged is proved, continues to have full effect. In such a case, as laid down by this Court, the exercise of managerial functions does not arise at all.
40. Therefore, it will be seen that both in respect of cases where a domestic enquiry has been held as also in cases where the Tribunal considers the matter on the evidence adduced before it for the first time, the satisfaction under section 11A, about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned, is that of the Tribunal. It has to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion one way or other. Even in cases where an enquiry has been held by an employer and a finding of misconduct arrived at, the Tribunal can now differ from that finding in a proper case and hold that no misconduct is proved.
41. We are not inclined to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the employers that the stage for interference under Section 11A by the Tribunal is reached only when it has to consider the punishment after having accepted the finding of guilt recorded by an employer. It has to be remembered that a Tribunal may hold that the punishment is not justified because the misconduct alleged and found proved is such that it does not warrant dismissal or discharge. The Tribunal may also hold that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified because the alleged misconduct itself is not established by the evidence. To come to a conclusion either way, the Tribunal will have to reappraise the evidence for itself. Ultimately it may hold that the misconduct itself is not proved or that the misconduct proved does not warrant the punishment of dismissal or discharge. That is why, according to us, Section 11-A now gives full power to the Tribunal to go into the evidence and satisfy itself on both these points. Now the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reappraise the evidence and come to its conclusion enures to it when it has to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it in which an employer relies on the findings recorded by him in a domestic enquiry. Such a power to appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion about the guilt or otherwise was LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL Page No. 21 of 30 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:50:13 +0530 always recognised in a Tribunal when it was deciding a dispute on the basis of evidence adduced before it for the first time. Both categories are now put on a par by section 11A"
(Emphasis supplied)
58. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, as the domestic enquiry as conducted by the management has been set aside, it was for the management to now lead fresh/ independent evidence to prove the misconduct on the part of the workman and the evidence, if any, so led by the management, has to be considered on the parameters of preponderance of probabilities as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt as is required in criminal cases. In Rajender Singh v. State Bank of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7386, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that:
"It is also well settled that the standard of proof, required in criminal proceedings and those before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, are different. Before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, the standard of proof is not that the misconduct must be proved beyond reasonable doubt but whether on preponderance of probability, it could be concluded that the employee is guilty as charged."
(Emphasis supplied)
59. In the present case, as per the statement of article annexed with the memorandum i.e. Ex WW1/1, the workman is alleged to have been guilty of misbehaving with his superiors at GTPS on three occasions, which reflected his lack of integrity, devotion to duty and he acted in a manner highly unbecoming of an employee of the company:
• Firstly, as to him not following the instructions given to him by GM(GT) on 11.08.06, by refusing to go to his respective work, and arguing when he was asked to go. • Secondly, as to him having followed the GM(GT) into the room of GM(GT) without any permission, where he started LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL signed by Page No. 22 of 30 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:50:19 +0530 shouting and when he was requested to leave the room, he again started shouting and used abusing/ filthy language in front of the Managers, who were present in the room of GM (GT) for the purpose of plant review meeting.
• Thirdly, he had also pushed Sh. R.C. Bhatia, Sr. E/Fitter and started shouting loudly saying "Tere Jaise Bohat Dekehe Hain", and misbehaved with GM(GT); and while going out, he had pushed Sh. R.C. Bhatia, and manhandled him.
60. It was thus for the management to lead evidence to prove the attributed misconduct of the workman. However, before this court, the management has not examined any of the officials towards whom such misbehaviour was directed i.e. Sh Satwant Singh GM(GT) or even Sh. R.C. Bhatia, Sr. E/Fitter, but has only examined one witness i.e. MW3 Sh NK Dhyani who has testified as to being present in the time room on 11.08.2006, where he was taking attendance, and the workman was asked to leave after his attendance was recorded, but he did not leave, and insisted that he would like to see the attendance of other workers. MW3 has also testified to the effect that he had again asked the workman to leave, who insisted that he would not go and would keep sitting there, at which time General Manager Satwant Singh reached and insisted and directed the workman to leave, but the workman started heated argument with him and told the General Manager that he should 'shut up'.
61. Thus, as per the testimony of MW3, he was present in the time room at the time of the incident i.e. at the time of argument of the workman with his senior and his testimony in respect of the LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) POOJA Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL AGGARWAL Page No. 23 of 30 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.30 16:50:26 +0530 factum of the workman arguing with his senior i.e. the General Manager and as to the factum of utterance of the words 'shut up' by him to the General Manager, has not been discredited by the workman through cross-examination, nor any reason has been brought on record to disbelieve the same. The testimony of MW3, thus, proves that on 11.08.2006, the workman had argued with his senior i.e. the General Manager and uttered the words 'shut up'. The act of the workman having a heated argument with a senior constitutes a misconduct as it is unbecoming of an employee within the meaning of Section 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, when seen in the context of the language used i.e. utterance of the words 'shut up'.
62. The mere factum of the non-examination of the complainant in this regard is not fatal of the case of the management since the factum of misconduct stands duly proved from the testimony of MW3 himself, as the incident of argument took place in his presence.
63. However, the entire testimony of MW3 is conspicuously silent as to the workman having refused to go to his work after being asked by the General Manager and hence, the management has not been able to prove any misconduct of the workman on this account.
64. In respect of the other acts of misconduct i.e. in respect of the workman having followed Sh. Satwant Singh into the meeting room, or as to him having shouted at/ abused him there in the presence of other officials or even as to the workman having LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally signed by Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL POOJA Page No. 24 of 30 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:50:31 +0530 pushed Sh. R.C. Bhatia and manhandled him, while going out of the meeting room, the management did not examine either the complainant or even the persons who were purportedly present in the meeting room at the time of the misbehaviour as per the chargesheet itself i.e. Sh. S.C. Sood, DGM(Mech.), E.No. 2481, Sh. Sanjeev Malik, Manager(M-II) E. No. 35146, Sh. K.S. Yadav, Manager(M-I), E.No. 30068, Sh A.K. Sethi, Manager (Store & Air Cond.), E. No. 10058, Sh. P.N. Yadav, Manager (M-II), E.No. 35713.
65. Though the chargesheet itself stated that Sh. R.C. Bhatia was present in the GM(GT)'s room whereas some other workers were standing out side, and while going out Sh. N.C. Joshi pushed Sh. R.C. Bhatia and manhandled him, yet not even a single worker who was purportedly present outside the room, has been examined.
66. In these circumstances, in the absence of examination of the complainant Sh Satwant Singh, Sh. R.C. Bhatia or even the persons who were present in the room of the complainant at the time of the alleged misbehaviour, the very factum of the very presence of the workman inside the meeting room and consequently, the factum of any misbehviour inside the room as well as while the workman was leaving the room, remains unproved.
67. Hence, from the entire evidence on record, the misconduct of the workman in respect of him having acting in a manner unbecoming of an employee stands proved.
LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally
Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL signed by
POOJA
Page No. 25 of 30
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30
16:50:38
+0530
68. Though it has been argued on behalf of the management, that even after inquiry had been set aside, the evidence recorded therein forms a part of the 'material on record' and can be considered, it is noted that as per the settled proposition of law, once the inquiry has been set aside, the management is required to prove the misconduct on the basis of fresh evidence and cannot rely on the evidence led during inquiry.
69. Strength for this interpretation is placed on Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (1999) 1 SCC 517, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
26. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in spite of the direction by the Labour Court to the respondent-management to lead evidence, it was open to the Management to rely upon the domestic enquiry proceedings already held by the Enquiry Officer, including the evidence recorded by him, and it was under no obligation to lead further evidence, particularly as the Management was of the view that the charges, on the basis of the evidence already led before the Enquiry Officer, stood proved. It was also contended that under Section 11-A, the Labour Court had to rely on the "materials on record" and since that enquiry proceedings constituted "material on record", the same could not be ignored. The argument is fallacious.
27. The record pertaining to the domestic enquiry would not constitute "fresh evidence" as those proceedings have already been found by the Labour Court to be defective. Such record would also not constitute "material on record", as contended by the counsel for the respondent, within the meaning of Section 11-A as the enquiry proceedings, on being found to be bad, have to be ignored altogether. The proceedings of the domestic enquiry could be, and, were, in fact, relied upon by the Management for the limited purpose of showing at the preliminary stage that the action taken against the appellant was just and proper and that full opportunity of hearing was given to her in consonance with the principles of natural justice. This contention has not been accepted by the Labour Court and the enquiry has been held to be bad. In view of the nature of objections raised by the appellant, the record of enquiry held by the Management ceased to be "material on record' within the meaning of Section 11-A of the Act and the only course open to the Management was to justify its action by leading fresh LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL signed by POOJA Page No. 26 of 30 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:50:43 +0530 evidence as required by the Labour Court. If such evidence has not been led, the Management has to suffer the consequences."
(Emphasis supplied)
70. Hence, the argument of the management is rejected and the evidence led by the management during inquiry has not been considered.
71. In as far as the justifiability of the punishment of termination as imposed upon the workman is concerned, it is noted that in view of Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, even if misconduct of the workman is proved, this Court is also to satisfy itself as to whether the misconduct proved warrants the punishment of dismissal nor not.
72. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd., v. Management, (1973) 1 SCC 813), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"41-A. Another change, that has been effected by section 11A is the power conferred on a Tribunal to, alter the punishment imposed by an employer. If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the misconduct is established, either by the domestic enquiry accepted by it or by the evidence adduced before it for the first time, the Tribunal originally had no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. Once the misconduct is proved, the Tribunal had to sustain the order of punishment unless it was harsh indicating victimisation. Under section 11A, though the Tribunal may hold that the misconduct is proved, nevertheless it may be of the opinion that the order of discharge or dismissal for the said misconduct is not justified. In other words, the Tribunal may hold that the proved misconduct does not merit punishment by way of discharge or dismissal. It can, under such circumstances, award to the workman any lesser punishment instead. The power to interfere with the punishment and alter the same has been now conferred on the Tribunal by section 11A"
(Emphasis supplied) LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL signed by POOJA Page No. 27 of 30 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:50:48 +0530
73. However, such powers need to be exercised judicially as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v N.B. Narawade, [2005(3) SCC 134] (also cited in M/S. L&T Komatsu Ltd vs N. Udayakumar, AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1752), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted as under:
"It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management where the workman concerned is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred to hereinabove and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11-A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such factor existing, the Labour Court cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11-A of the Act and reduce the punishment."
(Emphasis supplied)
74. In the present case, the management has proved only one instance of misconduct i.e. of the workman having argued with his senior in the time room. The other attributed misconducts have remained unproved in the Court.
75. Hence, from the evidence as brought on record, the punishment of dismissal from service is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct especially when the management has failed to bring on record any facts to prove that workman was habitually arguing with his seniors or that the argument was premeditated or even that it involved any violence, seriously Digitally LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) signed by Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL POOJA Page No. 28 of 30 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:50:54 +0530 impacting the discipline of the management.
76. Notwithstanding the fact that the punishment of dismissal from service as imposed upon the workman vide order dated 08.02.2008 i.e. Ex WW1/5, has subsequently been reviewed by the management itself reviewed vide its order dated 28.09.2010 i.e. Ex WW1/14, since the reference as received is not specifically regarding the termination order dated 08.02.2008 or the reviewed punishment, the mere factum of the review of the termination order, does not preclude this court from examining whether any other relief is warranted / directions are required to be issued in view of the proven misconduct despite the reduced / reviewed punishment as the dismissal of the workman from service has been found to be unjustifiable.
77. In the present case, as the workman has misconducted himself by arguing with a senior and only one instance of such argument has been proved, the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by one stage, for a period of one year, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension is imposed upon him, which punishment which holds the workman accountable for his actions while also ensuring that he continues in service.
78. At this stage, it is also noted that in the reference order dated 11.03.2010 as received as also in the corrigendum dated 29.01.2013 to the reference order, the reference was also received in respect of whether the workman had abandoned his job. However, no such plea of abandonment has been raised by the LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Digitally Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL signed by Page No. 29 of 30 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 16:50:59 +0530 management in its pleadings before this court nor any evidence has been led in respect of the same rendering the factum of abandonment of service by the workman, unproved.
79. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the reference as received is answered as under:
"It has not been pleaded or proved that the workman Sh. Navin Chandra Joshi had abandoned his job. It has been proved that the termination of services of the workman by the management was unjustified in view of the proven misconduct, and a punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by one stage, for a period of one year, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension is imposed upon him."
80. Copy of Award be sent to the concerned department through proper channels as per rules.
81. File be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by POOJA Announced in the Open Court POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
today i.e. on 30th August 2025 2025.08.30 16:51:06 +0530 (POOJA AGGARWAL) Presiding Officer Labour Court -01 Rouse Avenue District Court New Delhi (sy) LIR No. 6914/2016 (Old ID No. 35/2010) Navin Chandra Joshi Vs. M/s IPGCL Page No. 30 of 30