* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Letters Patent Appeal No. 624/2011
% Date of Decision: August 4, 2011
Management of Ashok Hotel ....Appellant
Through Mr. Ujjawal K. Jha with
Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
Mohinder Singh .....Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 04.08.2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Management of Hotel Ashok has filed the present intra court
appeal against the decision dated 10th May, 2011, dismissing Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 12391/2006 filed by them. Learned single Judge has
upheld the award dated 25th October, 2005, passed by Industrial
adjudicator holding inter-alia that the appellant Management had failed
to lead evidence to prove the charges against the workman Mohinder
Singh, the respondent herein. The respondent workman was awarded
punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative
LPA 624/2011 Page 1 of 4
effect and had raised an industrial dispute. Before the industrial
adjudicator, the appellant conceded and accepted that the
departmental proceedings were vitiated and there was violation of
principles of natural justice. However, the appellant Management was
given an opportunity to prove the misconduct by the respondent
workman.
2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is
that the industrial adjudicator has wrongly ignored and rejected as
heresay the evidence of Ashok Lamba, Manager (Vigilance & Security)
and the said finding is incorrect and contrary to law. He has further
submitted that learned single Judge has also committed the same error.
3. We have examined the affidavit filed by Ashok Lamba which has
been placed on record as Annexure A-8. The charge against the
respondent workman was that he had deliberately left the place of
duty, i.e. the supply gate, on 9th March, 1988, and had gone to the car
parking area in connivance with one Mr. J. K. Rout, Foreman Grade-I,
and a representative of M/s Cactus Lilly Enterprise so as to smuggle out
2 extra empty gas cylinders and 26 filled gas cylinders instead of 150
LPA 624/2011 Page 2 of 4
empty gas cylinders for which gate pass had been prepared and signed
by J.K. Rout.
4. As per the affidavit of Ashok Lamba, gate pass of 150 gas
cylinders and challan of M/s Cactus Lilly was seized from J. K. Rout,
Foreman who was standing inside the hotel. The truck carrying the said
gas cylinders had not left the hotel. The filled gas cylinders were
without seal cap, which are found on filled cylinders and are removed
before a cylinder is used. When Ashok Lamba reached the spot, the
truck driver was found sitting on the Driver’s seat along with some
employees. The aforesaid affidavit does not show and establish any
connivance between the respondent workman, representatives of
Cactus Lilly and J.K. Rout. The respondent workman is not the person
who was responsible for overseeing loading of the gas cylinders and
whether or not the gas cylinders were filled or empty. It is not alleged
that the cylinders were to be loaded in his presence. It is not stated by
Mr. Ashok Lamba that it was the duty of the respondent workman to
ensure that the filled gas cylinders or extra cylinders were not loaded.
The truck had not left the hotel compound and was still parked. It
cannot be presumed that the respondent workman would not have
LPA 624/2011 Page 3 of 4
reached the supply gate and verified the cylinders with the gate pass.
The contention that the respondent security guard should not have left
the supply gate or should have kept it locked, does not impress us and
does not show or indicate that the respondent workman was guilty of
fraud or had acted dishonestly. Admittedly, he was within the hotel
compound. The respondent workman was held guilty and punished for
a different charge.
5. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present
appeal and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
August 04, 2011
kkb
LPA 624/2011 Page 4 of 4