Delhi District Court
Sh. Jorawar Singh vs M/S. Mother Dairy Fruit Vegetable Ltd on 31 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - XIX
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI
LIR No. 4978/16
Sh. Jorawar Singh
S/o Sh. Mai Lal Singh
ABC1353, YIVAshok Colony
Line Par, Bahadurgarh124 507
District Jhajjar, Haryan.
... Workman
Versus
M/s. Mother Dairy Fruit Vegetable Ltd.
Regd. Office: Patparganj
Delhi - 110 092.
2 nd Address:
Fruit & Vegetable Unit
Mangolpuri Industrial Area
PhaseI, Delhi - 110 083.
... Management
Date of institution of the case : 04.11.2011
Date of passing the Award : 31.10.2018
A W A R D:
1.The present statement of claim has been filed by the LIR No. 4978/16 Page 14 /14 workman under Section 10(4) read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 averring therein that he was appointed by the management as Helper GradeC, vide appointment letter no. F&V 4066 dated. 01.09.1989. and on 01.07.1995, he was promoted to the post of Helper GradeB, vide promotion letter No. F&V:HR&A 2898 dated 25.07.1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 950201150EB25 1400 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Helper Grade A, w.e.f. 01.04.2002, vide promotion letter No. F&V730 dated 20.04.2002 in the pay scale of Rs. 38008040401005240.
2. It was stated further by the workman that he used to perform his duty with due diligence, dedication, without any chance of complaint about his workmanship, devotion to duty, obedience and antecedents, nor there was any such allegation against him. It was also stated that unfortunately the workman had fallen ill and could not attend his duty for a specific period during which numerous tests were conducted and he had also sent his medical certificates and leave applications to the management from time to time. However, the management, instead of sanctioning his medical leaves had chargesheeted him and ultimately initiated a departmental inquiry against him vide E.O. on 14.07.2010 and the workman was ultimately dismissed from the service on 10/11.02.2011 vide order No. F&V HR&A 9900.
3. It was stated further by the workman that during his LIR No. 4978/16 Page 14 /14 service of 22 years, he had not afforded any chance of complaint about his conduct, dealing, behaviour and antecedents. However, same was not considered by the management despite the fact that the workman was legally entitled to claim his medical leaves for the period of his absence as he had undergone treatment. The action of dismissal of management was stated to be uncalled for and unwarranted and therefore, it was prayed by the workman that he was entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages and service benefits with continuation of service.
4. Notice of this statement of claim was sent to the management which was also duly served upon it and management had also appeared to contest the claim of the workman on merits and had taken the plea of gross misconduct of the workman by way of unauthorized absenteeism for which the management had chargesheeted him and also conducted inquiry against him after that he was dismissed from the service in due and proper compliance of the relevant rules and regulations in this regard.
5. On merits, all the factual contents of the statement of claim which were neither specifically admitted to be correct nor essentially and purely constituted matter of record, were denied by the management as wrong and incorrect.
6. To this written statement, the workman had also filed his LIR No. 4978/16 Page 14 /14 rejoinder wherein all the objections of the management were denied as incorrect and he had reiterated the contents of his statement of claim as correct.
7. On the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide his order dated 29.08.2012, was pleased to frame the following issues:
1. Whether the claimant unauthorizedly absented himself on various dates? OPM
2. Whether a valid departmental inquiry was conducted against the claimant, if so, its effects? OPM
3. Whether the services of the workman were illegally and / or unjustifiably terminated? OPW
4. Relief.
8. In order to discharge the onus of the issues, the workman had filed his affidavit in his examination in chief and was also partly crossexamined on 07.11.2013 and ultimately his cross examination was concluded on 20.09.2014 and the matter was proceeded for management's evidence. However, before the cross examination of MW1 could have been concluded, an application was filed on behalf of the management praying therein that the issue pertaining to inquiry conducted by the management against the workman be treated as preliminary issue. The said application LIR No. 4978/16 Page 14 /14 filed by the management was allowed vide order dated 27.10.2016 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. In the said order, it was clarified by the Ld. Predecessor that although the workman was examined and crossexamined on the whole issues involved in the present case. However, his evidence was required to be ready only to the extent of preliminary issue in the first instance and thereafter depending upon the outcome of the said preliminary issue, the parties were to be given further opportunity to lead their respective evidences.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid directions which remained unchallenged, my findings on the preliminary issue are as under: ISSUE NO. 2 : 2. Whether a valid departmental inquiry was conducted against the claimant, if so, its effects? OPM
10. The workman in his affidavit Ex. WW1/A had reiterated the contents of his statement of claim on solemn affirmation and had also placed on record, the following documents:
1. Photocopy of offer of appointment letter of workman dated 01.09.1989 as Ex. WW1/1.
2. First promotion letter of workman dated 25.07.1995 as Ex. WW1/2.
3. Photocopy of promotion letter dated 20.04.2002 as Ex. WW1/2 (inadvertently numbered as 2 instead of Ex. WW1/3).
LIR No. 4978/16 Page 14 /144. Medical prescriptions and certificates of the workman as Ex.WW1/4 collectively.
5. Photocopy of the final order dated 10/11.02.2011 issued by the management against the workman as Ex. WW1/5 and copy of the reply of the workman dated 26.06.2010 as Ex. WW1/6.
6. Identity Card and punching card issued by the management to the workman as Ex. WW1/7 and Ex. WW1/8 respectively.
11. During his crossexamination conducted by Ld. AR for the management, workman was stated to have studied upto 6 th class and was not able to read and write English language and it was also admitted by him that he had not read his affidavit but the same was read over to him by his counsel. The period of absenteeism during which the workman had remained absent was also admitted to be correct by him. The workman had voluntarily stated that he had applied for leaves from time to time but the same were rejected by the management every time. It was also voluntarily stated by the witness, that whenever he himself had forgotten to apply for the same, he had applied for the leaves subsequently. He was not in possession of any record of making applications for leaves. He was stated to be unemployed as on the date of his deposition and was working as casual daily wager as and when he got the work. His family consisted of his wife, one daughter and one son.
LIR No. 4978/16 Page 14 /1412. During his further crossexamination dated 15.03.2014 conducted by Ld. AR for the management, the workman had denied the suggestion that he had filed to join his duty despite issuance of several letters or that he himself had voluntarily left his job. It was however admitted to be correct by him that an inquiry was initiated against him by the management and he had attended one or two hearings as well. Though the medical documents were submitted by him with the management but he had no evidence to show the said submission. A suggestion put to him to the contrary was denied by him as wrong along with the suggestion that the documents he was relying upon, were forged and fabricated documents. The factum of receiving the chargesheet as well as replying the same and his residence being at Bahadurgarh along with receipt of his dismissal letter were admitted to be correct by the workman.
13. However, receipt of any show cause notice was denied by him. It was deposed further by the workman that he had not seen any publication dated 24.11.2011 in the newspaper "Punjab Kesari". It was voluntarily stated by him that he was not in a habit of reading newspaper.
14. Intimation of his leaves was stated to have been sent by him to the management though his neighbour Samarkar but the management had returned the same without receiving. However, he had not sent those letters again by post on refusal by the LIR No. 4978/16 Page 14 /14 management. Even neighbour had not told him the name of person who had refused to receive the said letters. Reply to the charge sheet was stated to be prepared by his elder brother. His absence from duties was owing to his own illness and illness of his wife and daughter. It was denied by him that he had not applied for leave on prescribed format. Even he had not visited any government hospital regarding his illness and Braham Shakti Sanjivani Hospital from where he had taken treatment was stated to be on the penal of the management. Though initially, the workman himself had claimed to have studied upto 6th class but on the said day, he had claimed himself to be only 4th class pass and had never tried to find any alternate employment after termination of his services. His daughter was stated to be married and his son was stated to be working.
15. During his further crossexamination dated 20.09.2014 conducted by Ld. AR for the management, the workman could not remember the number of days for which he had remained absent from his duties. He had again denied the suggestion that the documents produced by him were forged and fabricated. Further, it was deposed by him that the documents were produced by him at least twice before the management but every time the management had returned the same without any acknowledgement. It was also stated by him that he had never applied for his medical leaves in advance but had sent the intimation of the same only after joining.
LIR No. 4978/16 Page 14 /1416. It shall be pertinent to mention here itself that this deposition of the workman is quite contrary to his own deposition dated 07.11.2013, wherein he had voluntarily stated that sometimes, he had applied for leaves in advance and sometimes subsequently. It was also stated by him that neither he had sent his leave applications to the management by post nor had ever replied to any of the letters of the management. He had no proof of depositing his documents with the management. Other formal suggestions were also denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
Thereafter, workman's evidence was closed.
17. In rebuttal, the management had examined two witnesses to prove its stand. MW1 Sh. Neeraj Swaroop Sharma was stated to be working as Dy. Manager (H.R.) with the management who had filed on record, his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex. MW1/A wherein he had reiterated the stand of the management as taken in its written statement on solemn affirmation regarding misconduct of the workman by way of unauthorized absenteeism. He had also placed on record the following documents:
1. Copy of chargesheet as Ex. MW1/1 (page 1 to 2).
2. Reply of the workman to the chargesheet dated 26.06.2010 as Ex. MW1/2 (page 3).
LIR No. 4978/16 Page 14 /143. Letter of appointment of Inquiry Officer as Ex. MW1/3 (page 4 to
5).
4. Inquiry report along with inquiry proceedings as Ex. MW1/4 (colly.)
18. During his crossexamination conducted by Ld. AR for the workman, on 25.08.2017, it was deposed by him that he had gone through the reply of the workman dated 26.06.2010. However, he could not remember as to how many medical certificates were filed before him by the workman. Although filing of some of the medical certificates by the workman was admitted to be correct by him. He could not remember the date of his appointment as Inquiry Officer. Information about the inquiry was given to the workman by the witness but he could not tell the date when such information was given by him to the workman or the inquiry was initiated by him.
19. It was also admitted by the witness that the workman had sought permission to appoint the defence assistance of his choice which was also granted to him Ex.MW1/D1 (running into 6 pages) which was part of the inquiry proceedings was admitted by the witness including absence of the marking of presence of defence assistant of the workman on 14.07.2010. It was denied by him that signatures of the defence assistant on inquiry proceedings were obtained later on by the witness or that the workman was not granted the opportunity to crossexamine the management's LIR No. 4978/16 Page 14 /14 witnesses on 14.07.2010. Again it was denied by him that no opportunity was granted to the workman to crossexamine any of the witnesses of the management. It was admitted to be correct by him that inquiry was completed in a single day and it was also volunteered by him that since the workman had accepted the charges against him hence, inquiry was completed in such a short period.
20. Other formal suggestions regarding non consideration of the material placed on record by the workman or non supplying of documents of the management to the workman were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
21. MW2 is Sh. Uday Kumar Thakur was also stated to be working as Dy. Manager (H.R.) with the management, who had placed on record, his examinationinchief by way of an affidavit Ex. MW2/A wherein he had reiterated the stand of the management as taken in its written statement on solemn affirmation and in addition to the documents already placed on record by the management, he had also placed on record the following documents:
1. Copy of letter dated 26/27.08.2010 along with postal receipts as Ex.MW2/1 and Ex. MW2/2 respectively.
2. Copy of show cause letter dated 13.11.2010 as Ex. MW2/3 along with its postal receipt as Ex. MW2/4.
LIR No. 4978/16 Page 14 /143. Copy of reminder of show cause notice dated 22/24.01.2011 sent by the management to the workman as Ex. MW2/5 along with postal receipt as Ex. MW2/6.
4. Publication made by the management in the newspaper "Punjab Kesari" as Ex. MW2/7.
5. Copy of dismissal order as Ex. MW2/8.
6. Copy of letter dated 02.03.2011 mentioning about recovery of Rs. 2,63,459/ recoverable from the workman along with its postal receipt as Ex. MW2/9 and Ex. MW2/10 respectively.
22. However, since the originals of Ex. MW2/3, MW2/4 and Ex. MW2/7 were not available with the management. Hence, the same were deexhibited at the time of their tendering and were marked as MarkMA, MarkMB and MarkMC.
This witness was not crossexamined by the workman. Thereafter, management's evidence was closed.
23. In the light of aforesaid testimonies of the parties, my issuewise findings are as under: ISSUE NO. 2: Whether a valid departmental inquiry was conducted against the claimant, if so, its effects? OPM:
The onus to prove this issue was upon the management who had duly discharged the same by way of examination of the Inquiry Officer and placing on record the chargesheet as well as entire inquiry proceedings and inquiry report in respect of the workman.LIR No. 4978/16 Page 14 /14
From the documents relied upon by the management, Ex. MW1/2 which is the photocopy of a letter of workman dated 26.02.2010 addressed to Assistant Manager, HR & A, Fruit and Vegetable Department, in which the workman had categorically admitted his absenteeism and had taken plea of being unfamiliar with the rules about applying for leaves being illiterate.
Further, from a perusal of document Ex. MW1/4 which is the inquiry report, it is reflected that the workman himself had admitted the factum of his absenteeism for the period as stated by the management and had also given an explanation that due to some property dispute at his native place, he had remained on leave and had not informed the management about the same due to absence of communication system at his native place in the year, 2008. In the year, 2009, he was stated to have suffered from stone pain and had started visiting Quacks. Document Ex. MW1/D1 relied upon by workman himself shows that the workman had asked for the defence assistant of his choice which was also granted to him.
It shall be further pertinent to mention here that neither in his statement of claim nor in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW1/A, the deceased workman had leveled any allegation of any kind of bias, unfairness or violation of rules and principles of natural justice in respect of the inquiry conducted by the management nor any suggestion was either put to the management's witness by him LIR No. 4978/16 Page 14 /14 during his crossexamination.
Therefore, in the absence of any allegation of biasness or unfairness, nepotism, undue favour or violation of rules and principles of natural justice, the inquiry could not be stated to have been vitiated for any of the reasons required for the same.
Hence, the issue is answered in affirmative and is decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT on 31st Day of October, 2018 (Lokesh Kumar Sharma) Addl. District & Sessions Judge Presiding Officer, Labour CourtXIX Dwarka Courts, New Delhi LOKESH KUMAR Digitally signed by LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2018.11.02 15:07:24 +0530 LIR No. 4978/16 Page 14 /14