Delhi District Court
Naveen Kumar Kadian 1 Ors vs Ms Maharaja Agarsen Hospital on 21 July, 2025
LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
LIR No. 1759/2016
CNR No. DLCT13-000071-2008
1. Sh. Naveen Kumar
S/o Sh. Jasram
House No. 120, Type -II, 1st Floor,
E.S.I. Hospital Quarters,
Basai Darapur,
New Delhi-110015.
2. Sh. Mohan Lal Jonwal
S/o Sh. Kajodilal
C-7, 1151, Sultanpuri
New Delhi 110 086 ..... Workmen
Versus
M/s Maharaja Agrasen Hospital
Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi. ..... Management
Date of institution 12.02.2009
Order reserved on 02.07.2025
Date of Award 21.07.2025
AWARD
1. This award shall dispose of the following reference sent by the
Secretary (Labour), Labour Department, Govt. of the National
Capital Territory of Delhi arising between the parties named
above to this Tribunal vide notification No. F-24
Digitally signed
(1550)/08/Lab/10420-24 dated 18.11.2008: GAUTAM
MANAN
by GAUTAM
MANAN
Date: 2025.07.22
18:33:52 +0530
Page No. 1 of 20
LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
"Whether the termination of services of Sh.
Naveen Kumar Kadian S/o Sh. Jasram and Sh.
Mohan Lal Jonwal S/o Sh. Kajodi Lal w.e.f
07.10.2008 by the management is illegal and/or
unjustified and if so, to what relief are they
entitled?
2. Vide award dated 07.10.2022, claim filed by the workman no. 2
Mohan Lal Jonwal stands disposed of as settled.
Case of Workman Naveen
3. Workman joined the services of the management in 2002 as 'X-
Ray-cum-CT Technician' and was drawing monthly wages of
Rs.7,000/- per month.
4. It is stated that workman No.1 was President of the Maharaja
Agarsen Hospital Employees Union (Regd.) and an Industrial
Dispute I.D. No.85/2001 in which the claimants were concerned
workmen was pending between the management and the
workmen before Industrial Tribunal No.1.
5. It is averred that management was continuously pressurizing the
workman to withdraw the Industrial Dispute or for reaching at a
compromise with the management where the management was
not ready to concede any reliefs to the workmen but workmen
refused to bow down to the pressure of the management.
Pressure was put on the claimants who were the President and
General Secretary of the Union who refused to succumb to the
Digitally signed
pressure of the management. GAUTAM MANAN
by GAUTAM
MANAN Date:
2025.07.22
18:34:01 +0530
Page No. 2 of 20
LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
6. It is stated that vide Order dated 21.10.2008 the Assistant Labour
Commissioner declared the workman as a protected workmen
and he was declared a protected workman w.e.f. 23.05.2008 to
07.10.2008.
7. It is averred that no charge sheet was issued to the workman for a
long time during which time the management continued to put
pressure on the workman to compromise with the management
on Industrial Dispute No.85/20018. Workmen had to finally let
the management know very clearly that no compromise would
be possible on the Industrial Dispute since the workmen of the
hospital were very agitated on account of the long pendency of
the demands and any settlement between the management and
the union was to be approved by the General Body of the union
where the majority of the workmen were not ready to
compromise on the demands.
8. It is stated that on 07.10.2008, the management delivered a
dismissal order by hand to the workman dismissing him from
their permanent services without issuing them any charge sheet,
holding any enquiry or affording any opportunity to the him of
being heard in contravention of the principles of natural justice.
9. It is averred that in addition to the allegations leveled against the
Digitally signed
workman vide suspension order dated 19.09.2008, the dismissal
by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
Date:
MANAN 2025.07.22
18:34:14
+0530
Page No. 3 of 20
LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
order also leveled various other charges also against the
workman which were never communicated to him at any stage.
It is stated reading of the dismissal order cum-charge sheet
would show that the charges were fabricated subsequently. That
the workman is a protected workman at the time of his dismissal
and management could not have dismissed their services without
seeking permission from Tribunal under Section 33 (3) of I.D.
Act, before which I.D. NO.85/01 was pending.
10.That the action of the management in terminating the services of
the applicant workmen is by way of victimization, malafide and
is an unfair labour practice as mentioned in Clause No.5(a) and
(b) to the Vth Schedule to the I.D. Act, 1947. It is stated that
though the services of the workman was terminated on
07.10.2008 but no application under 33 (2) (b) was moved by the
management.
11.It is stated that the workman vide letter dated 10.10.2008 called
upon the management to reinstate him in service, with continuity
of service, full back-wages and all other consequential benefits.
but the management has not responded to the same. It is prayed
that an award be passed in favour of the workman and against
the management thereby reinstating the workman in service,
with continuity of service, full back wages and all other
Digitally signed
consequential benefits. GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2025.07.22
18:34:25 +0530
Page No. 4 of 20
LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
Version of Management
12.On behalf of management, it is submitted that workman actively
participated in an attempt to defame, embarrass and humiliate the
President of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital Charitable Trust and
also refused to obey the lawful and reasonable orders of the
Chief Executive Officer, Medical Superintendent. and Sr.
Administrative Officer of the Hospital on account of which
exceptional circumstances the holding of an enquiry at the
instance of the Chief Executive Officer was not considered
appropriate, the Chief Executive Officer being the disciplinary
authority, decided to terminate the service of the workmanfor the
reasons as mentioned in the termination order dated 07.10.2008.
13.It is stated that as a measure of abundant caution, in compliance
with the provision of section 33-2(b) of the Act has transferred a
sum of Rs. 7,000/- to the bank account of workman being his
wages for one month and as a part of the same transaction the
management also filed an application for approval of the
termination of the services of Shri Naveen Kumar before the
Industrial Tribunal.
14.It is stated that the management has got its own Service
Conditions Rules (SCR), which governs the terms and conditions
of the employment of the employees of the Hospital and para 32
Digitally signed
of the Service Condition Rules, deals with procedure for GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.07.22
18:34:32 +0530
Page No. 5 of 20
LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
disciplinary action and under sub para 12, "In exceptional
circumstances where the charges committed by an employee(s)
are very grave and serious the disciplinary authority may
terminate the service of the employee(s) without holding an
enquiry by recording reasons to this effect."
Issues
15.Following issues were re-framed on 20.03.2012:
1. As per terms of reference.
2. Relief
Workman's Evidence
16.Workman Naveen Kumar examined himself as WW2. He
tendered his evidence by of an affidavit as Ex.WW2/A. He
proved a copy of his suspension order dated 19.09.2008 as
Ex.WW2/1 and his reply dated 26.09.2008, as Ex.WW2/2 and he
also proved a copy of termination order dated 07.10.2008 as
Ex.WW2/3.
17.WW3 Anil Kumar and WW4 Babu Lal deposed that an office
order dated 08.10.2008 (Mark A) was displayed on the notice
board of the Maintenance Department of the Hospital.
Management's Evidence
18. In order to prove its case, management examined MW1 Rakesh
Gera, who tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit GAUTAM MANAN
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
Date:
MANAN 2025.07.22
18:34:39
+0530
Page No. 6 of 20
LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
Ex.MW1/A. He deposed in respect of the allegations levelled
against workman Naveen on the basis of which workman was
terminated from the services of the hospital.
19.MW2 Dr Suparna Jha tendered her evidence by way of an
affidavit as Ex.MW2/A. She deposed that on 19.09.2008 at
about 3:30 PM, workman along with few other employees,
including Mohan Lal, instigated the employees of the hospital
working in the radiology laboratory and reception as well as
some contract labor in the Housekeeping department, to leave
their work place and to loudly shout derogatory slogans against
the management like "trust hai hai, union zindabad, management
murdabad". She testified that workmanalong with Mohan Lal
was inciting the other employees to stop their work and
workmanwas trying to destroy the property and machinery of the
management hospital and obstructing the passage of patients and
their attendants and in this regard, she gave a written complaint
Ex. MW1/14.
20. MW3 Dr SS Srivastva tendered his evidence by way of an
affidavit Ex.MW3/A and he deposed on the lines of MW3.
21. MW4 Parshu Ram Yadav, deposed that he gave a statement as in
respect of incident dated 22.09.2008 to the Medical
Digitally signed
by GAUTAM
Superintendent. GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.07.22
18:34:46 +0530
Page No. 7 of 20
LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
22.Final arguments have been heard as advanced by both the
parties. Tribunal has gone through the documents, pleadings as
well as written arguments of parties.
Analysis and Discussion
23.Issue No.1: According to the terms of reference, it is to be
determined as to whether the termination of services of Naveen
Kumar with effect from 07.10.2008 by the management is legal
and/or unjustified, and if so, what relief he is entitled.
24.It is the admitted case of the management that prior to
termination of the workman from his job of X-Ray cum CT
technician and no enquiry was conducted against him. In his
affidavit, MW1 Rakesh Gera specifically stated that on account
of exceptional circumstances, the holding of enquiry against the
workman was not considered appropriate and the Chief
Executive Officer being the disciplinary Authority decided to
terminate the service of the respondent.
25. In "Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (P) Vs Management & Others, 1973 (1) SCC 813" Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
We have exhaustively referred to the various decisions of this Court, as they give, a clear picture of the principles governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal when adjudicating disputes relating to GAUTAM Digitally by GAUTAM signed MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.07.22 18:34:57 +0530 Page No. 8 of 20 LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
dismissal or discharge. From those decisions, the following principles broadly emerge:
(1) The right to take disciplinary action and to decide upon the quantum of punishment are mainly managerial functions, but if a dispute is referred to a Tribunal., the latter has power to see if action of the employer is justified.
(2) Before imposing the punishment, an employer is expected to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders, if applicable, and principles of natural justice. The enquiry should not be an empty formality.
(3) When a proper enquiry has been held by an employer, and the finding of misconduct is plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence, adduced at the said enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decision of the employer as an appellate body. The interference with the decision of the employer will be justified only when the, findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or the management is guilty of victimisation, unfair labour practice or mala fide.
(4) Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order, has to give an oppor- tunity to the employer and employee to, adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying his action; and it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra.
(5) The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry is that the Tribunal would not have to consider only whether there was a prima facie case. GAUTAM MANAN Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 18:35:04 +0530 Page No. 9 of 20 LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
On the other hand, the issue about the, merits of the impugned order of dismissal or discharge is at large before the Tribunal and the latter, on the evidence adduced before it, has to decide for itself whether the misconduct alleged is proved. In such cases, the point about the exercise of managerial functions does not arise at all. A case of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no enquiry.
(6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction. to consider the evidence placed before-it for the first time in justifications of the action taken only, if no enquiry has been held or after the enquiry conducted by an employer is found to be defective.
(7) It has never been recognised that the Tribunal should straightaway, without anything more, direct reinstatement of a dismissed or discharged employee, once it is found that no domestic enquiry has been held or the said enquiry is found to be defective.
(8) An employer, who wants to avail himself of the opportunity of adducing evidence for the first time before the Tribunal to justify his, action, should ask for it at the appropriate stage. If such an opportunity is asked for, the Tribunal has no power to refuse. The giving of an opportunity to an employer to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal is in the interest of both the management and the employee, and to enable the Tribunal itself to be satisfied about the alleged misconduct, (9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the enquiry conducted by an employer or by the evidence placed before a Tribunal for the first time, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to, suggest victimisation. GAUTAM Digitally signed by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.07.22 18:35:10 +0530 Page No. 10 of 20 LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
(10) In a particular case, after setting aside the order of dismissal, whether a workman should be reinstated or paid compensation is, as held by this Court in The Management of Panitole Tea Estate v. The Workmen(1), within' the judicial decision of a Labour Court or Tribunal.
The above was the law as laid down by this Court as on 15-12-1971 applicable to all industrial adjudication arising out of orders of dismissal or discharge.
26.Above authoritative judgment, makes it clear that even if no enquiry was held by management the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order, has to give an opportunity to management and workman and employee to, adduce evidence.
27.Let us examine whether the management has been able to prove the exceptional circumstances and the set of allegations against the workman to justify its decision in terminating workman.
28.Set of allegations appearing against workman in the evidence led by management are as under:
a) On 02.08.2008, workman made Ms Katuri Devi to lodge a false complaint Ex MW1/8 before SHO Punjabi Bagh.Digitally signed by GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.07.22
18:35:17 +0530
Page No. 11 of 20
LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
b) Workman threatened Dr. Rajesh Mishra, ENT OPD, on 12.09.2008, in the presence of Dr. Rajeev Nangia and Ms Hemlata and Ms. Saroj that if his known person, Mrs. Naresh Kumari, is not operated upon before leaving the hospital, his seven brothers would be waiting on the door to make sure that either the Doctor is finished or they are finished.
c) On 19.09.2008 at about 3:30 p.m. the workman along with a few other employees, including Mohan Lal, instigated the employees of the hospital, working in the radiology, Laboratory and Reception as well as some contract labour in the Housekeeping department, to leave their work place and to loudly shout derogatory slogans against the management like trust hai hai, union zindabad, management murdabad. workmanalong with Mohan Lal was incited the other employees to stop their work and he tried to destroy property and machinery of the management hospital and was obstructing the passage.
d) On 20.09.2008, in contravention of his suspension order the workman entered the X-Ray Department at 12:40 PM and after being told to move out workman started threatened to inflict serious harm on patients getting admitted in the Hospital to bring down the reputation of the Hospital. Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 18:35:24 +0530 Page No. 12 of 20 LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
29. (a) Lodging of a false complaint: It is the case of management that on 02.08.2008, workman made Kasturi Devi lodge a false complaint Ex. MW1/8 before the S.H.O. Punjabi Bagh that her husband was refused discharge from the hospital even after treatment due to non payment of bill. It was further alleged in the complaint, that when Kasturi Devi requested President of the Trust Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta for exemption from payment of bill, he insulted her.
30. It is stated that complaint was written in Hindi and it bear the thumb impressions of Kasturi Devi which was later on withdrawn by Kasturi Devi on 11.08.2008 by giving a statement Ex MW1/9 that President of Trust never abused her and on the contrary waived the bill for the treatment of her husband.
31. In view of above Mr. JS Guleria, conducted a fact finding inquiry wherein he recorded a statement Ex. MW1/10 of Kasturi Devi wherein she stated workman along with Mohan Lal and Anil Kumar approached her stating that they were colleagues of her son-in-law Pradeep Kumar, who also was posted at the site of the hospital. She stated that workman and his colleagues had obtained her thumb impression on a sheet of paper claiming it to be an application for waiver of bill of treatment.
Digitally signedGAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.07.22 18:35:37 +0530 Page No. 13 of 20 LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
32.She further stated that on the following day they came with another letter and obtained her thumb impression on it. She further stated that on 04.08.2008, on the request of her son in law, her complete bill was waived off by the then President of the Trust. She also submitted that a week thereafter she was informed by her son-in-law that the workman along with his colleagues had hatched a conspiracy whereby her thumb impression was misused to lodge a false complaint against the then President of the Trust by the workman his colleagues.
33.In her statement, Kasturi Devi mentioned that on 11.08.2008 she visited the Police Station with her son in law and withdrew the complaint and later on it was informed to the management by Sh. Pradeep Kumar that her mother has expired.
34. It is evident that no opportunity was given to the workman by the management to confront Kasturi Devi in respect of her statement Ex.MW1/10 wherein she alleged that her thumb impressions were misused by respondent. Statement Ex.MW1/10 was solely recorded by MW1 JS Guleria. The statement Ex.MW1/10 which runs into five pages does not bear the thumb impressions of Kasturi Devi on each page.
35.Workman against whom the allegation has been made by Kasturi Digitally signed Devi that she her thumb impressions were misused by workman GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
2025.07.22 18:35:44 +0530 Page No. 14 of 20 LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
never got a chance to confront Kasturi Devi nor she is examined by the management in the evidence lead before Tribunal.
36. Nonetheless, it has also come with evidence that Pradeep Kumar son-in-law of Kasturi Devi was also working in the Hospital under a contractor and in all probability the complaint could not have been made by Kasturi Devi without his assistance. Moreover, it stands admitted by MW1 that entire bill amount relating to treatment of husband of Kasturi Devi was waived of completely and it cannot be ruled out that only after waiver of the bill, Kasturi Devi agreed to withdraw her complaint. Moreover, in her withdrawl statement Ex MW1/9 Kasturi Devi does not say that her thumb impressions were misused or she lodged her complaint under influence of workman.
37.There is no material on record which indicates and substantiate the claim of the management that Kasturi Devi lodged the complaint against President of the Management Trust under influence or on instigation of workman nor there is any evidence on record that the workman misused the thumb impressions of complainant, Kasturi Devi and managed to lodge a complaint against the management.
38.As stated above, workman has never got an opportunity to Digitally signed confront Kasturi Devi on these allegations. Without affording an by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN Date:
MANAN 2025.07.22 18:35:52 +0530 Page No. 15 of 20 LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
opportunity, the workman cannot be presumed to be behind lodging of a complaint by or on behalf of Kasturi Devi. Accordingly it is held that the allegations of lodging of false complaint by the workman stands not proved against him.
39. (b) Allegations of threatening: It is alleged by the management that workman threatened Dr. Rajesh Mishra, former Consultant, in the ENT OPD, on 12.09.2008, in the presence of Dr. Rajeev Nangia and Ms Hemlata and Ms. Saroj that if his known person, one Mrs. Naresh Kumari, is not operated upon before leaving the Hospital, his seven brothers would be waiting on the door to make sure that either the Doctor is finished or they are finished. The said incident was reported in writing by Dr. Rajesh Mishra, Consultant as well as Dr. Rajeev Nangia, Senior Consultant ENT along with Ms. Hemlata, Nursing Aide and Ms. Saroj. Copies of the complaints made by Dr. Rajesh Mishra, Dr. Rajeev Nangia, Ms. Hemlata and Ms. Saroj are proved as Ex.MW1/11.
40. Admittedly, management did not hold any enquiry in respect of the allegations made in the complaint Ex.MW1/11. In the present proceedings as well, management did not bring any evidence on record to substantiate the allegations that on 12.09.2008 workman threatened Dr Rajesh Mishra in presence of Dr. Rajeev Nangia, Senior Consultant ENT along with Ms. Hemlata, Digitally signed GAUTAM by GAUTAM Nursing Aide and Ms. Saroj. MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.07.22 18:35:59 +0530 Page No. 16 of 20 LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
41.None of the eyewitnesses to the incident including Dr Rajesh Mishra have been examined by the management before the Tribunal to prove the allegations. In absence of evidence, allegations that workman threatened Dr Rajesh Mishra in presence of the other staff remains un-substantiated.
42. (c)Raising slogans and Disrupting Work: It is in affidavit of MW2 Dr Suparna Jha and MW3 Dr SS Srivastva that on 19.09.2008 at about 3:30 p.m. the workman along with a few other employees, including Mohan Lal, instigated other employees working in the radiology, Laboratory and Reception and as contract labour in the Housekeeping Department, to leave their work place and to loudly shouted derogatory slogans against management like trust hai hai, union zindabad, management murdabad.
43. It is alleged that workman along with Mohan Lal incited the other employees to stop their work and he tried to destroy the property and machinery of the management hospital and was obstructing the passage. Workman along with Mohan Lal were taken by police to the room of CEO. Workman was suspended with immediate effect and MW2 & 3 gave a written complaint Ex. MW1/14 to the Administration in this regard.
Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.07.22
18:36:10 +0530
Page No. 17 of 20
LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
44.Deposition of both MW2 & 3 indicates that workman alone was not causing any disruption. If at all many workers of the Hospital were involved in shouting slogans and obstructing the passage of patients, then the management ought not to have singled out the workmen Naveen and Mohan by putting the blame of the incident on them.
45.It is also matter of record that no complaint was received from any patient or attendant of the patient in respect of the alleged disruption of the work. No FIR was registered by the police in respect of the alleged incident. Nonetheless, if at all the management was aggrieved with the conduct of workman, the management ought to have sought an explanation from him. No CCTV footage of the incident has been brought on record. In these circumstances, the entire responsibility of the incident ought not to have been attributed on the workman warranting his immediate termination.
46. (d) Threatening to cause serious harm to patients: It is alleged that on 20.09.2008, in contravention of his suspension order, workman entered the X Ray Department at 12:40 PM and on being told to move out he started arguing on the issue with his supervisor and the A.A.O and threatened to inflict serious harm on patients getting admitted in the Hospital to bring down the Digitally signed reputation of the Hospital. GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.07.22 18:36:20 +0530 Page No. 18 of 20 LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
47. It is alleged that he threatened to sabotage and damage the medical equipment of the Hospital and endanger the peace and normal medical services. A written complaint filed by the AAO in this regard is proved on record as Ex.MW1/15.
48.None of the eye witnesses to the alleged incident nor complainant AAO of the Hospital have been examined by the management before the Tribunal to prove the allegations. In absence of any evidence, the allegations that workman threatened AAO remains un-substantiated.
49.Accordingly, issue stands answered against the management. It is held that management was not justified in terminating the services of the workman on the basis of un-substantiated allegations.
Issue No.2: Relief
50. In the light of above discussions, the order of termination dated 07.10.2008 of the workman from the service of the management stands set-aside.
51. It is recently held in Mahadeo Krishna Naik v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation 2025 INSC 218 by Hon'ble Apex Court that if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or Digitally signed GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.07.22 18:36:33 +0530 Page No. 19 of 20 LIR No. 1759/2016 " Naveen Kumar & Anr. Vs Maharaja Agasrsen Hospital "
that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full back wages.
52. Since the order of termination is found unjustified, in view of the above cited judgment, workman Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Jasram is entitled to be re-instated in the employment of the management from the date of his illegal termination i.e. 07.10.2008 with full back wages and consequential benefits.
Management shall implement the award within 60 days of its publication failing which the management will be liable to pay an interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of reference i.e. 18.11.2008 till its realization. The award is passed accordingly.
Copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 21st July, 2025.
Digitally signed byGAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2025.07.22 18:36:39 +0530 GAUTAM MANAN PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI Page No. 20 of 20