Delhi District Court
Between The vs The on 13 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMARII, PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR
COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0198632008
ID No. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new)
Date of institution 07.03.2008
Date of receiving of present case by way of transfer 06.05.2014
Date of Order 13.08.2015
BETWEEN THE WORKMAN
Miss Manju Karki as represented by Delhi Labour Union, Agarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis
Hazari, Delhi110054.
AND
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/s Hotel The Oberoi, Dr. Zakir Hussain Marg, New Delhi3.
ORDER
1 By this order I shall dispose of the enquiry issue i.e. issue no.1 with respect to fairness and proper conducting of the enquiry by the management before terminating the services of the workman which issue was framed by the court of Ld. Predecessor on 16.07.08.
2 Before coming to the facts which are necessary for the disposal of the enquiry issue i.e. issue no.1, brief facts stated by the workman in her statement of claim are that initially the present matter was received to the court by way of reference from the Secretary (Labour), Labour Department, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, 5Sham Nath Marg, Delhi54 vide notification No.F.24/(2249)/06/Lab./17961800 dated 13.02.08 with the following terms of reference:: "Whether dismissal of Miss Manju Karki from service by the management is illegal and/or unjustified; and if yes, to what relief is she entitled?"
3 Notice was sent to the workman with directions to file statement of claim which has ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 1/17
been filed by her stating therein that she joined into the employment of the management in May 1983 as a Room Attendant and after about six months she was confirmed in services and she has discharged her service continuously to the management since May 1983 till July 2004 and she has unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to her credit. It is further stated that all of a sudden the workman was called upon by the management on 03.06.2002 regarding some investigation relating to a theft of Rs.1,00,000/ committed in room no. 406. As the workman was totally innocent and was totally unaware about the said theft, she replied all the queries raised by the management but it seems that the management has already determined to terminate her services and therefore, a charge sheet dt. 22.06.2004 was issued to her making therein baseless and bald allegations. It is further stated that the workman immediately vide her letter dt. 24.06.2004 informed the management that she is totally innocent but as grave charges of theft have been leveled against her, she demanded certain documents from the management for the purpose of drafting a proper reply but the management refused to supply those documents vide their letter dt. 02.07.2002. It is further stated that in the aforesaid circumstances and in the absence of relevant documents, the workman sent her detailed reply dt. 08.07.2002. It would also be relevant to mention here that the workman was also suspended simultaneously with issuance of charge sheet dated 22.06.2002. It is further stated that ultimately a fake enquiry has been conducted against the workman and she was terminated from services vide letter dt. 22.07.2004 and the said termination/dismissal of the services of the workman is totally illegal, bad unjust and malafide for the following amongst other reasons: i that the workman has not committed any misconduct of any kind whatsoever and it is not open to the employer to fish out any conduct as misconduct unless and until, it is specifically enumerated in the list of misconduct.
ii that the enquiry conducted by the management was fake and it was merely a ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 2/17
formality as no proper opportunity of being heard was given to the workman. iii that the reply submitted by the workman to the charge sheet was not considered properly.
iv that the enquiry conducted against the workman was in total violation of the principles of the natural justice, as the workman was not afforded any opportunity of being heard.
v that the alleged charges leveled against the workman were absolutely wrong without any base and have not been proved at all.
vi that the enquiry conducted against the workman was totally eyewash, as the relevant documents were not supplied to the workman despite her specific demand and even list of witnesses was also not provided to her.
vii that the enquiry conducted against the workman was totally illegal and perverse and in fact the charges leveled against her were not proved at all.
viii that the order of dismissal is also bad in law as the management has not supplied its mind judiciously to the material on record before passing the said order and in fact the management had predecided the issue in controversy. The past record of the workman, which was also required to be considered by the management at the time of termination of her services, has not been considered at all by the management. The management has not considered the material on record and they have not considered the fact that the alleged charges were never proved in law. The management has also not taken into consideration the gravity of the alleged charges and the circumstances before imposing the capital punishment of termination of services on the workman. The management was adamant and with ulterior motive they imposed the extreme penalty of termination on the workman. ix that the said order of termination is bad in law as the said order amounts to unfair labour practice as victimization. The extreme penalty of termination is totally ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 3/17 disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged charges.
x that the said order of termination is otherwise also bad in law and liable to be quashed.
xi that no FIR was registered against the workman for the alleged act of theft. xii that the management has no where disclosed as to what action the concerned customer has taken against them to recover his alleged loss.
xiii that the enquiry offer was totally biased and he was acting only as per the instructions issued by the management and one of such example can be quoted that the workman filed an application for her representation through a legal practitioner but said application was rejected not by the enquiry officer but the management vide their letter dt. 10.02.2003. xiv that the charges leveled against the workman were also totally manipulated because the motive of the management is to terminate the services of their old employees. It would be pertinent to mention here that the management has also leveled the same charges of theft on one Miss Anjlena, six months prior to the workman and they have also leveled the same charge against another workman namely Miss Vinita Thapa. So as such, all the charges leveled against the workman are fabricated and manipulated one. xv that the workman was not permitted representation from the persons of her choice. xvi that the enquiry was conducted against the workman with the sole intention to terminate her services.
4 It is further stated that the workman is totally unemployed since the day she has been illegally dismissed/terminated from her services. The demand notice was also served upon the management by regd. A/D post vide communication dt. 08.09.2004 duly received in their officer and a reply thereto dt. 11.10.2004 was also sent by the management and as the said reply was given only with a view to manipulate the things, a dispute was raised by filing a claim before the Ld. Conciliation Officer but the conciliation proceedings failed due ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 4/17 to adamant and non cooperative attitude of the management. In these circumstances, the workman has prayed that an award may kindly be passed in her favour holding therein that the workman has been illegally dismissed from the service and she be held entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages and with all consequential benefit thereof and the cost of litigation as provided in Section 11 (7) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may also be awarded to the workman.
5 The management has contested the present case and filed its written statement thereby taking preliminary objections that a notice bearing no. ID/COC/557/04/276 dated 10.01.2005 was issued for conciliation and proceedings held and closed on 03.03.2005 with a liberty to the workman to file here claim directly before the Labour Court and it appears that the workman did not avail the opportunity to file her claim directly under section 10 (4A) of the I.D. Act and to cover up her delay and defeat the provisions of limitation, again approached the Conciliation Officer. Thereafter, on 02.03.2006 a fresh notice for conciliation was issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, which was objected to the management as the proceedings having been already concluded and closed, could not be reported to defeat the provisions of limitations as provided under section 10 (4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as amended in Delhi; that during the second round of conciliation, authorized representative of the workman, through its rejoinder, stated that they have been directed by the Labour Court to get the matter referred from the Labour Department, but the same was not supported by any evidence; that the reopening of the claim after one year of the case is highly belated and malafide. Therefore, the reference itself is bad in law and misuse of the process of law. The reference is liable to be rejected on both these grounds; that the services of the workman were dismissed on 22.07.2004 on proved charges of misconduct. The present reference/claim is stale, highly belated and is liable to be rejected. In brief facts the management has stated that at the time of appointment in service, the name ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 5/17 of the workman was miss Pawan Kumari Gurung and upon marriage, she changed her name to Mr. Manju Karki and requested the management to record her new name; that the workman, Ms. Manju Karki was issued a charge sheet dated 22 nd June, 2002, for serious misconduct and she was charged with the following misconducts: Causing loss or damage to the property of establishment generally and in particular: (d) By theft, embezzlement, misappropriation or mischief.
Committing any offence, within the meaning of Indian Penal Code within the premises of the establishment or outside the premises and committing any act of omission within the premises of the establishment or outside, whether amounting to an offence or not which tend to have the effect or result in impairing the reputation, the public confidence, the discipline, or the prestige of the Hotel or Management.
Any act or omission showing loss of confidence in the employee.
6 It is further stated that the charge sheet was received by the workman on the same day and she submitted her reply but her reply was found unsatisfactory and a domestic enquiry was instituted, which was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice; that during the course of enquiry, the workman was given the documents desired by her as well as copies of management documents and she was given ample time to study the documents. She was explained the procedure of enquiry and was given due opportunity to crossexamine management witnesses and lead her defence. She filed her written submissions also. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry found the charges as established and proved. The enquiry was held in a fair and proper manner and the workman was supplied a copy of the Enquiry Report and was also given a notice on 03.07.2004 to show cause as to why her services be not dismissed. It is further stated that after examining her reply, the management concurred with the report of the Enquiry Officer and dismissed her vide order dated 20th July, 2004 and her final dues were settled and cheque no. 137500 ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 6/17 dated 29.07.2004, drawn on Union Bank of India, for a sum of Rs.30,514/ was sent to her under registered cover, which was received by the workman on 30.07.2004. It is further stated that in the first instance, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to decide the alleged illegality of the domestic enquiry and if the enquiry is vitiated for any reason whatsoever, management shall lead evidence before this Hon'ble Court to prove the charges and accordingly craves leave of this Hon'ble Court for the same. As far as merits are concerned, it is stated that the workman did not have unblemished record as alleged by her and she was issued charge sheet dt. 22.06.2002 for gross misconduct, as stated above and was dismissed from service, after the charges were proved against her in a fair and proper domestic enquiry and in the past also she had been twice issued warning and on one occasion a day's wages were deducted. It is further stated that it is admitted that a charge sheet dt. 22.06.2002 was issued to the workman giving the details of the charges leveled against her but it is denied that baseless and bald allegations were leveled in the said charge sheet. It is a matter of record prior to issue of charge sheet, some investigations were held. It is also admitted that the workman submitted her reply denying charges leveled against her and also admitted that she was also suspended pending enquiry into the allegations leveled against her. It is, however, submitted that since the reply submitted by the workman was found unsatisfactory and in order to give an opportunity to defend herself, a domestic enquiry was held, wherein she was given full opportunity to defend herself. It is further stated that it was not necessary to provide any document before she submitted her reply. However, copies of all the documents relied upon and filed in the enquiry were given to her and she was given adequate opportunity to examine the same, cross examine the management witness as well as lead her evidence. It is further stated that the enquiry was conducted as per the principles of natural justice and the workman was given the opportunity to cross examine management witnesses and present her case and she was dismissed from service after charges were ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 7/17 proved against her and after considering her submissions to the Enquiry Report. It is further stated that the dismissal of the workman is just and legal, in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders and principles of natural justice. As far as grounds raised by the workman in statement of claim from (i) to (xiv) for the said termination/dismissal of the services of the workman are concerned, the contents of each ground have been denied. It is further stated that the demand notice dt. 08.09.2004 received from Delhi Labour Union was duly replied by the management vide their reply dated 11.10.2004, sent by registered AD, Courier and by hand, which has been duly delivered at the address of the workman and in view of the charges proved found against her, her demand deserved rejection. It is denied that the reply sent by the management was given only with a view to manipulate things. It is further stated conciliation proceedings are a matter of record but it is denied that conciliation proceedings failed due to alleged adamant and noncooperative attitude of the management and it has been clearly stated by the management that in view of the gravity of the misconduct committed by the workman, she could not be reinstated in service with full back wages etc. as demanded by her and her retention/reinstatement in service would be highly prejudicial to the interests of the establishment and discipline. In these circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to decide as a preliminary issue, whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman is illegaly, unfair and improper as alleged, if the enquiry is vitiated for any reason whatsoever, then to grant an opportunity to the management to lead evidence before this Hon'ble Court to prove the charges against the workman and pass and award in favour of the management and against the management that she is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
7 The workman filed rejoinder in which she denied all the contents of the written statement word by word and she has reiterated and reaffirmed the facts of the statement of claim as correct and prayed that an award may kindly be passed in her favour in terms of the ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 8/17 prayer made by her in the statement of claim.
8 After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 16.07.08: 1 Whether a fair, just and proper enquiry following the principles of natural justice was held by the management?
2 Whether the services of the workman were illegally terminated by the management?
3 Relief in terms of reference.
9 After framing up of the issues, matter was fixed for workman evidence. The workman examined herself as WW1. The workman did not examine any other witness on enquiry issue and workman evidence was closed. On the other hand the management examined two witnesses i.e. Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate/Enquiry Officer, as MW1 and Ms. Divya Pahuja Manager (Human Resources) of the management, as MW2. The management also closed its evidence on enquiry issue. Thereafter, matter was fixed for arguments on enquiry issue.
10 The workman has filed written synopsis on the preliminary issue regarding validity of enquiry. I have perused the same. On the other Ld.AR for management has advanced his oral arguments and submitted that the enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice, hence enquiry issue be decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
11 Record perused. On perusal of record my findings on enquiry issue i.e. issue no.1 are as follows: 12 In nutshell the case of the management is that the workman was issued a charge sheet dated 22.06.02 for serious misconduct which was received by the workman on the same ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 9/17 day, whereafter she submitted her reply but her reply was found unsatisfactory and a domestic enquiry was instituted, which was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry found the charges as established and proved and after examining reply of the workman, the management concurred with the report of the Enquiry Officer and dismissed her vide order dated 20th July, 2004. 13 The workman has deposed in terms of her statement of claim and she has relied upon the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/2, letter received from management is Ex.WW1/3, copy of statement of claim filed before conciliation officer is Ex.WW1/4, copy of charge sheet is Ex.WW1/5 and copy of reply to charge sheet are Ex.WW1/6, Ex.WW1/7 to Ex.WW1/19. The workman was cross examined by the Ld.ARM and in cross examination, she deposed that the enquiry proceedings bear her signatures and she had received the charge sheet dt. 22.06.02 and further deposed that the enquiry officer has not explained the procedure to be followed in the enquiry. This witness admitted that her representation to be represented through legal practitioner was rejected by enquiry officer not by the management but denied the suggestion that the enquiry officer had told her that she can take the help or can be represented by a coworker. This witness further deposed that except manager no other management witness attended the enquiry proceedings. This witness further denied the suggestion that the enquiry officer had given her opportunity to cross examine the management witnesses and further deposed that she did not remember if she had cross examined management witness Ms. Ashima Lal. This witness further denied the suggestion that she had cross examined Ms. Ashima and she is deliberately telling lie that she is not remembering it. This witness further admitted that she had requested the enquiry officer to conduct the proceedings in Hindi and her request was accepted by it and she had received the copy of the report given by the enquiry offer. This witness further denied the suggestion that the enquiry as just and fair and principles of natural justice were followed or ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 10/17 that she is deposing falsely.
14 The management has examined the enquiry officer Sh. Gulshan Chawla as MW1 and he has proved the enquiry proceedings Ex.MW1/1 (colly) running from page no.1 to 127 and the enquiry report Ex.MW1/2 running from page no.128 to 158 in his evidence as filed by him by way of affidavit. The MW1 Sh. Gulshan Chawla was cross examined by Ld.AR for workman and during the cross examination he deposed that Ex.WW1/5 is the representation of the workman and the same was received by him during the enquiry proceedings and denied the suggestion that he has not disposed the aforesaid representation but it was by the management. This witness further deposed that Ex.WW1/6 was the reply submitted before him by the management in response to the letter dt. 30.01.03 and denied the suggestion that he declined the opportunity to the workman at the behest of the management. This witness further deposed that Ex.WW1/7 is the representation of the workman which was received by him during the enquiry proceedings and denied the suggestion that documents mentioned therein were not provided by him to the workman. This witness further denied that the workman was not provided full opportunity in the enquiry proceedings or that the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice or that the findings of the enquiry are perverse.
15 The management in support of its case has also examined Ms. Divya Pahuja, Manager (Human Resources) of the management, as MW2 and she was also cross examined by Ld.AR for workman. In cross examination MW2 admitted that she is not the author of the enquiry report and also that she is not the author of document Ex.MW2/1 (already exhibited). She further deposed that she joined the management in the year 2008 and he has no personal knowledge about the working of the workman prior to her joining. She further denied the suggestion that the alleged enquiry conducted by the management is a sham and without any cause or that the whole conduct of the management was with the ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 11/17 object of terminating the services of the workman or that the workman was not given fair opportunity to defend herself in the alleged enquiry proceedings. This witness further denied that the management indulged in unfair practices by terminating the services of the workman but admitted that the management has not examined the enquiry report and other alleged material before issuing the letter of dismissal to the workman in his presence. 16 Before appreciating the evidence of both the parties, it is necessary to mention here certain facts regarding the enquiry proceedings. I have perused the entire enquiry proceedings Ex.MW1/1 (colly.) as conducted by the Enquiry Officer. On perusal of enquiry proceedings it is revealed that the Enquiry Officer explained the procedure to be followed in the enquiry proceedings to both the parties and thereafter, the workman made a request to conduct the enquiry proceedings in Hindi language which was accepted by the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, the enquiry proceedings were conducted in Hindi Language. The workman was given liberty to engage her coworker to represent her case during the enquiry proceedings. It is further revealed that the workman was provided all the documents as demanded by her in her application dt. 12.08.02 except copy of passport of the guest. It is further revealed that the workman was given opportunity to cross examine management's witnesses and the cross examined the management's witness Sh. Narottam Ahluwalia. It is further revealed that the workman moved an application on 30.03.03 thereby seeking permission to engage a lawyer to represent her case during enquiry proceedings which application was dismissed by the Enquiry Officer vide order dt. 27.03.03 as per Certified Standing orders, which were applicable to all employees of the establishment wherein it is stated that the charge sheeted employee can be allowed to be represented/defended through an employee working in the establishment. It is further revealed that thereafter, the workman concluded cross examination of Sh. Narottam Ahluwalia on 16.07.03. It is further revealed that thereafter, the workman cross examined other management's witnesses i.e. Ms. ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 12/17 Ashima Lal, Sales Manager and Sh. S.L. Soni, Wg. Cdr. of the management. It is further revealed that the workman filed an application on 01.04.04 for production of some documents which was disposed of by the Enquiry Officer vide order dt. 09.04.04. Thereafter, the workman filed her written submissions and as such enquiry proceedings were concluded and thereafter enquiry report Ex.MW1/2 (colly.) was prepared by the Enquiry Officer.
17 Here the contention of the workman is that the management did not provide all the documents as demanded by her during the enquiry proceedings by which she could have disproved the charges leveled against her and as such the management has violated the principles of natural justice and therefore, enquiry report be held as perverse. In support of her contention she has relied upon following judgments:
i Committee of Management Kisan Degree College Vs Shambhu Saran Pandey and ors.; II LLJ 1995, 625 SC, wherein it was held that: "Dismissal from servicePerson, against whom action is proposed, has to be given opportunity of hearingOpportunity must be effective and not mere pretenseIf copies of documents proposed to be utilised are not supplied to him and he is at the same time called upon to submit his reply, no effective opportunity to defend is provided to himSimilarly copies of witness's statements recorded during preliminary enquiry have to be furnished".
ii Sunder Lal Dhanraj Kasliwal Vs Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & ors.; LLR 1995 247 (Bombay), in which it was held that "Disciplinary proceedings Principles of natural justiceSupply of documents mentioned in the charge sheetDocument relied as proof of chargeCopies of documents should be supplied to delinquent unless such documents are voluminous in which event inspection should be allowedDelinquent should obtain extract at his costFailure to permit inspection of extract violates principles of ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 13/17 natural justiceBefore conducting enquiry, opportunity should be given to inspect documentsEnquiry should be conducted thereafter and then hear delinquent on conclusion of such enquiry".
iii Shri N.K. Sareen vs Punjab National Bank & Anr., Writ Petition No. 802 of 1990, decided on 18.05.1994, Delhi High Court, in which it was held that "Petitioner demanded detailed particularsNot suppliedDismissed after enquiryWhether order of dismissal is liable to be quashed for violation of Principles of natural justice. Yes".
18 I have perused the aforesaid judgements and also perused the enquiry proceedings Ex.MW1/1 (colly.). On perusal of the enquiry proceedings it is revealed that the management had provided all the documents to the workman which were relied upon in support of the charges against the workman. It is also revealed that the workman was providing the copy of proceedings in Hindi Language conducted by the Enquiry Officer on every date of hearing. It is further revealed that the workman was provided all the documents as demanded by her in her application dt. 12.08.02 except copy of passport of the guest. It is further revealed that there is no objection raised by the workman in the entire enquiry proceedings with respect to non supplying of any document by the management nor the workman the workman has ever demanded copy of floor register during the entire enquiry proceedings. It is further revealed that the workman has filed an application on 06.05.14 for the first time before this court thereby directing the management to produce floor register for the entire month of May, 2002 which was dismissed vide order dt. 21.01.2015 by observing that since document sought by AR for workman has not been brought during the enquiry proceedings, hence at this stage, application of the workman can not be considered. Since the workman has never demanded copy of floor register from the management during the enquiry proceedings, it is held that the management had supplied ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 14/17 copy of all the documents to the workman and hence, judgements relied upon by the workman are not applicable into the facts of the present case.
19 There is another contention of the workman that she was not allowed to represent her case before the Enquiry Officer through an advocate and as such she was denied an opportunity of being heard, hence the enquiry is liable to be vitiated. In support of her contention the workman has relied upon following judgements:
i The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and ors., Civil Appeal No. 3724 of 1982 November 17,1982 (Supreme Court), in which it was held that "Disciplinary enquiryRight of employee to be represented by legal practitionerEmployer appointingPresentingcumProsecuting officer to represent it Denial or refusal of request of delinquent employee to engage legal practitionerPrinciple of natural justice held to be vitiatedOrder of dismissal quashed". ii Antonio B. Furtado, Petitioner Vs. Chariman & Managing Director, Bank of India, Bombay and others, Respondents, 1986 LAB. I.C. 613 (Bombay High Court) (Panaji Bench, Goa), in which it was held that "(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 Natural justice -
Domestic enquiry proceedings - Representation by lawyer Necessity of Duty of court Bank employee charged for misappropriation, fraud etc. Nonrepresentation of employee by a lawyerThis would result in violation of principles of natural justice".
"(B) Ban employee charged for misappropriation, fraud, etc. Under Bipartite Agreement representation of delinquent employee by lawyer, permissible, though subject to prior permission of the Bank Grant of such permission in the discretion of Bank - Refusal of permission, despite seriousness of charges, on ground that it would open "floodgates" Held, it was unreasonable; arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice".
20 I have perused the enquiry proceedings Ex.MW1/1 (colly.) and on perusal of enquiry ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 15/17 proceedings it is revealed that the Enquiry Officer had dismissed the application of the workman to engage an advocate to represent her case in enquiry proceedings after relying upon Certified Standing orders which were applicable to all employees of the establishment wherein it is stated that the charge sheeted employee can be allowed to be represented/defended through an employee working in the establishment. This court is of the opinion that the said application of the workman was rightly dismissed by the Enquiry Officer in terms of Certified Standing Orders of the management. Therefore, this contention of the workman is having no force and hence, judgements relied upon by the workman are not applicable into the facts of the present case 21 Now coming to the crossexamination of the workman which requires worth consideration. The workman during her crossexamination deposed that the enquiry officer has not explained the procedure to be followed in the enquiry, whereas perusal of enquiry proceedings show that the Enquiry Officer had explained the procedure to be followed in the enquiry to both the parties. The workman has denied the suggestion that the enquiry officer had told her that she can take the help or can be represented by a coworker, whereas perusal of enquiry proceedings show that the Enquiry Officer had given opportunity to the workman to take assistant of her coworker to represent her case in enquiry proceedings. The workman further deposed that except manager no other management witness attended the enquiry proceedings, whereas perusal of enquiry proceedings show that the management examined three witnesses in support of its case i.e. Sh. Narottam Ahluwalia, Ms. Ashima Lal and Sh. S.L. Soni. The workman has denied the suggestion that the enquiry officer had given her opportunity to cross examine the management witnesses, whereas perusal of enquiry proceedings show that the workman had cross examined aforesaid three witnesses on behalf of the management. The workman further deposed that she did not remember if she had cross examined management witness Ms. Ashima Lal, whereas it has already been ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 16/17 proved that the workman had cross examined Ms. Ashima Lal.
22 Enquiry proceedings itself speak that the Enquiry Officer had explained the procedure to be followed in the enquiry to both the parties; the Enquiry Officer had given opportunity to the workman to take assistant of her coworker to represent her case in enquiry proceedings; the workman had cross examined three witnesses on behalf of the management. After going through all such cross examination of the workman, this court is of the opinion that the workman has just shown her ignorance and as such the testimony of the workman is not appreciable.
23 It has already been proved on record that the Enquiry Officer had explained the procedure to be followed in enquiry proceedings to the workman; the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry proceedings in Hindi language at request of the workman; the management had provided copy of all the documents to the workman relied upon in support of charges against the workman; the workman was granted liberty to take assistant of her coworker employed in the management to defence her case; the workman was supplied copy of enquiry proceedings of every date by the Enquiry Officer; the workman had duly cross examined the management's witnesses and the opportunity to lead her evidence was also granted to the workman. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the enquiry officer had conducted the enquiry in accordance with principles of natural justice. Since the enquiry had been conducted in proper manner by the Enquiry Officer, it is not vitiated. Therefore, enquiry issue i.e. issue no. 1 is decided against the workman and in favour of the management.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (RAMESH KUMARII)
ON 13.08.2015 PRESIDING OFFICER:
LABOUR COURTIX/
EAST DIST./KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI
ID. 14/08 (old), 268/14 (new) 17/17