Delhi High Court - Orders
Pawan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 January, 2019
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~131
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1377/2017 & CM Nos. 39239/2018, 45389/2018
PAWAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr
Abhinav Tyagi, Advocates for R-1,
R-2, R-3 and R-5 with Mr Pawan
Kumar, Under Secretary, O/o Chief
Labour Commissioner.
Mr Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate for
R-4/CVC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 16.01.2019
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, essentially, seeking three principal reliefs. First, that he be protected from victimisation under the whistleblower notification by ensuring that no punitive or administrative action is taken against him for his act of whistleblowing. Second, that a direction be issued to respondent no.4 (CVC) to conduct an inquiry into allegation and complaints of corruption and malpractices made by him. And third, that appropriate directions be issued to respondent no.1 to initiate disciplinary action against Regional Labour Commissioner, Ranchi and four staff members who had alleged to have assaulted the petitioner on 03.05.2016.
2. The petitioner alleges that he had pointed out certain violations regarding payment of gratuity by M/s HEC Ltd to its employees. Further, he had also conducted inquiry in respect of establishment of M/s Hindalco Industries at Lohardaga. He states that the said inquiries had revealed violations of the Labour Laws, and in this regard, he had proposed that an action be taken against the defaulting parties/persons. It is his case that no action was taken against the said defaulting parties and instead the petitioner was victimised by officials of the Labour Department, which he alleges are corrupt and acting at the behest of the defaulting entities.
3. The petitioner further alleges that he was assaulted by certain officials of the Labour Department on 03.05.2016 at Ranchi and an FIR to this effect was also registered.
4. Insofar as the petitioner's complaint regarding assault is concerned, Mr Soni, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that an inquiry has been instituted and charges have been framed against four officials who are alleged to have assaulted the petitioner. He states that there are cross allegations, and FIR(s) have also been registered. He submits that the inquiry in this regard was delayed as the petitioner did not cooperate with the inquiry officer. Subsequently, the inquiry officer was changed and the matter is being enquired into. In this regard, he assures this Court that the inquiry shall be completed within a period of six months.
5. In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in this regard except to bind down the respondent to the aforesaid statement. The respondent shall ensure that the inquiry is completed as expeditiously as possible.
6. Insofar as the petitioner's contention that he be afforded the protection as a whistle-blower is concerned, this Court does not consider it apposite to pass any such orders. The petitioner was posted from Ranchi to Chennai and, therefore, was not in the same office as the persons against whom he had lodged a complaint. Concededly, he has now been posted at Asansol, West Bengal at his request. In this view, no further directions are warranted. In the event, the petitioner is aggrieved by any particular action of the respondents, it would be open for the petitioner to avail of his remedies in that regard.
7. Insofar as taking action in regard to the petitioner's complaints are concerned, it is affirmed by CVC that the complaints had been forwarded to the CVO and CVO was required to inquire into the same and submit a report. However, concededly, the CVO has not conducted the inquiry as required and this Court is informed that he has instead forwarded the complaint to the Chief Labour Commissioner against whom the allegation had been made. Clearly, CVC cannot absolve itself of its responsibility from inquiring into the complaints and immediately forwarding to the same to the CVO. The learned counsel for the respondent readily agrees that in the facts of this case it would be apposite for the CVC to conduct an inquiry into the allegations so made. Given the fact that no action on petitioner's complaint has been taken and the matter has been pending before this Court for almost two years, the CVC is directed to examine the complaints afresh. The CVO is also directed to conduct an inquiry and submit a report to the CVC as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, not less than four weeks from today. The CVC shall examine the same and issue appropriate directions that he may consider fit. If the CVC is of the view that further investigation is necessary, the CVC shall pass an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. The petition is disposed of.
8. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
9. Order dasti.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 16, 2019 MK