IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) 199/1985 & CMs 199/85, 4333/91, 5014/95,
7285/97, 11272/01
Reserved on: August 01, 2011
Decision on: August 26, 2011
SIEL LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate.
versus
THE LT. GOVERNOR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None for LRs of R-4/workman.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be No
allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
26.08.2011
1. Shriram Foods and Fertilizer Industries, formerly known as M/s. DCM Chemical
Works, a unit of M/s. DCM Ltd. (formerly known as Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.
Ltd.), filed this writ petition challenging the orders dated 30th January 1984, 14th March
1984, 28th March 1984, 31st March 1984 and 2nd December 1983 passed by the Labour
Court-I, in ID No. 81 of 1971 and the Award dated 2nd April 1984. The Petitioner has
since been substituted by SIEL Ltd.
2. This Court has heard Ms. Raavi Birbal, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, and
having perused the impugned order and the record.
3. The dispute referred to the Labour Court in ID No. 81 of 1971 was the legality of the
dismissal of the workman, Mr. Ved Prakash Gupta [since deceased and substituted by his
legal representatives (LRs)] and the relief to which he was entitled. The workman filed a
W.P. (C) No. 199 of 1985 Page 1 of 7
statement of claim stating that he was employed by the management of M/s DCM
Chemical Works on 11th June 1954 drawing a salary of Rs. 305 per month and was
instrumental in forming a union in the name and style of Rashtriya Chemical Karamchari
Sangh, Delhi. He had raised various demands for better service conditions of the
employees. In retaliation, the management issued a charge-sheet against the workman on
9th May 1968. Pursuant to an enquiry, the workman was found guilty and dismissed from
service on 9th September 1968. The resultant industrial dispute was referred to the Labour
Court in I.D. No. 81 of 1971.
4. The management filed its written statement on 20th January 1972. After completion of
pleadings issues were framed on 13th March 1972. The workman’s evidence was
recorded on 18th April 1972. The management cross-examined the workman’s witnesses
up to 28th May 1973. The workman’s evidence was then closed. The first management
witness was examined on 19th July 1973 and cross-examined on 7th September 1973. The
other four management witnesses were examined up to 28th September 1975 and the
management evidence was closed on 23rd October 1975. The case was listed for final
arguments. At that stage on 21st January 1976 the Labour Court took up for consideration
the preliminary issue of fairness of the inquiry. After eight years the said issue was
decided on 2nd December 1983 against the management. The said order is one among the
many has been challenged by the management in this petition.
5. A perusal of the order dated 2nd December 1983 shows that the management was not
able to substantiate its contention that the Inquiry Officer (‘IO’) had complied with the
principles of natural justice. The statement made by the workman in his affidavit that he
had not received any reply to his request made by a letter dated 1st June 1968 to the IO
for a list of witnesses and copy of documents, was not rebutted. In the cross-examination,
the management’s witness admitted to receiving this letter but did not give any reason as
to why the letter was not replied to. Even if the said letter was written by the workman in
Urdu, the management could have gotten it translated from somewhere. Even in the
cross-examination, the IO gave evasive replies. This led the Labour Court to conclude
that the enquiry had not been conducted in a fair manner. Further, the Labour Court
found that in the inquiry proceedings one of the management witnesses, Mr. R.K. Jain
was examined on 20th May 1968, cross-examined by the workman and finally the
W.P. (C) No. 199 of 1985 Page 2 of 7
evidence was closed. However, at the adjourned hearing of 30th May 1968, the same
witness was examined again by the IO. This examination amounted to establishing the
case of the management which led the Labour Court to conclude that the very purpose of
an impartial enquiry had been defeated.
6. This Court is not persuaded to hold that the order dated 2nd December 1983 of the
Labour Court suffers from any legal infirmity. It is based on the evidence led before the
Labour Court and there is no ground made out for any interference. The reliance placed
by Ms. Birbal on the decisions in The Lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workmen AIR
1961 SC 860 and State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh 1977 (2) SCC 491 is misplaced.
Even if the strict rules of evidence do not apply some basic rules of fairness would have
to be adhered to. That was clearly lacking in the inquiry, as rightly held by the Labour
Court.
7. With the enquiry being held to be unfair and invalid, it was incumbent on the
management to lead evidence before the Labour Court to show that there was misconduct
on the part of the workman. After the issue of fairness of the enquiry was decided against
it, and more than twelve years after the filing of its written statement, the management
filed a slew of applications. Contending that it had till then led evidence only on the issue
of the fairness of the enquiry, it filed an application praying that the Labour Court should
fix the case for filing of documents and evidence of the parties on the second issue, i.e.,
the legality of the dismissal of the workman. By the order dated 30th January 1984, the
Labour Court dismissed the said application. The said order has also been challenged in
the present petition.
8. The management contended, and this submission was reiterated in this Court, that it
had in para 13 of its written statement reserved its right to add, to alter and/or to modify
the written statement and to lead such oral and/or documentary evidence as may be
deemed necessary. This reserving of the right by the management did not by itself mean
that it had actually sought and had been granted permission to adduce evidence.
Consequently, the Labour Court concluded that in the absence of any specific plea in the
written statement, the management could not be allowed to adduce further evidence after
the decision on the preliminary issue being held against the management.
W.P. (C) No. 199 of 1985 Page 3 of 7
9. The important fact noted by the Labour Court was that while the workman had been
dismissed in 1968, the management’s written statement was filed in 1972, and a
preliminary issue was framed in 1976, yet no specific application was moved for leading
further evidence. Such an application was in fact moved only on 20th December 1983.
The only reason for this delay given by Ms. Raavi Birbal, learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner, is that the management had to await the decision on the preliminary issue
before seeking to adduce the evidence. This argument is entirely unconvincing and is
rejected as such. The management obviously knew what its case was and had led
evidence by this time to press its case. It need not have waited till the decision on the
preliminary issue. In any event, even for the preliminary issue it had examined a large
number of documents and five witnesses.
10. Ms. Birbal relied on the decisions in Workmen of the Motipur Sugar Factory (P)
Ltd. v. Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. 1965 (11) FLR 112; Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its
Workmen AIR 1963 SC 295; Workmen of Fire Stone Co. of India v. Management of
Fire Stone Co. of India AIR 1973 SC 1227; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Ludh
Budh Singh AIR 1972 SC 1031; Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. PP Mundhe 1975 Lab I C
1441 and Prem Nath Motors Workshop Pvt. Ltd. v. PO, Industrial Tribunal 1971 (1)
LLJ 167 and submitted that after the preliminary issue was decided against the
management it was open to the management to lead evidence on the aspect of misconduct
and that this opportunity could not be denied to it.
11. The above submission is without merit. A perusal of the record shows that the entire
process of examining witnesses was spread over four years. Five management witnesses
were examined and cross-examined and the evidence of the management was closed on
23rd October 1975. It can hardly be said that the management did not have sufficient
opportunity to lead evidence. It chose to wait for over eight years to seek to lead further
evidence. This was clearly an abuse of the process of law. It would have further delayed
the conclusion of the trial which had begun some time in 1971. No comparison can be
drawn with the facts of any of the cases cited by learned counsel for the management.
The Labour Court rightly rejected the said application. No grounds are made out for
interference with the order dated 30th January 1984.
W.P. (C) No. 199 of 1985 Page 4 of 7
12. The next order that is challenged is the one dated 14th March 1984 by which the
Labour Court dismissed an application by the management seeking permission to lead
evidence on the question of relief. The Labour Court noticed that the application had
been filed after the dismissal of the earlier application for leading evidence on 30th
January 1984. In the present application, neither did the management give details as to
how the past record of the workman was not good, nor was any proof given regarding the
employment of the workman. Again, no such plea was taken in the written statement.
Further, no plea was taken in the written statement about the gainful employment of the
workman. In the circumstances, this application was also rejected by the Labour Court.
13. The next order challenged is the one dated 28th March 1984 by the Labour Court
dismissing the management’s application for amendment of the written statement. The
management sought to add para 10A to the written statement stating that the past record
of the workman was very bad. This plea had already been rejected by the Labour Court in
its order dated 14th March 1984. The management then sought to add para 10B to plead
that the workman was doing business after his dismissal. This again was covered by the
earlier orders of the Labour Court.
14. Ms. Birbal referred to the decisions in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National
Building Material Supply, Gurgaon AIR 1969 SC 1267; Management of Monghyr
Factory ITC Ltd. v. PO, Labour Court 1978 LIC 1256 and Haridas Ailds Thadani v.
Godrej Rustom Kermani AIR 1983 SC 319, and submitted that the Labour Court ought
to have taken a liberal view of the request of the management to amend its written
statement. However, this submission does not impress this Court. The fact that the
application was filed more than twelve years after the filing of the written statement was
itself a sufficient ground for dismissal. Further, it would have the inevitable effect of
delaying the trial which had begun twelve years earlier in 1971. The orders dated 14th and
28th March 1984 of the Labour Court also do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever.
15. The last order dated 31st March 1984 passed by the Labour Court rejecting an
application filed by the management for adjournment of the case on account of the
inconvenience of the counsel for the management. The impugned order shows that the
W.P. (C) No. 199 of 1985 Page 5 of 7
learned counsel for the workman had submitted his arguments on 13th December 1983
and the case was fixed for final arguments of the management on 20th December 1983.
On that date, an application was moved which was dismissed by an order dated 30th
January 1984 and the case was reserved for award. On 6th February 1984 another
application was filed and the case was fixed for final arguments on 15th February 1984.
On that date also another request was made and the case was again adjourned to 25th
February 1984. Yet another adjournment was requested by the management and the case
was adjourned to 1st March 1984. On that date also another adjournment was sought and
the case was fixed for arguments on 6th March 1984. An application was filed on that
date which was dismissed on 14th March 1984 and the case was again adjourned to 16th
March 1984. On the said date a request for adjournment was made and the case was
listed for 24th March 1984 on which date, another application was filed which was
dismissed and the case was posted for 31st March 1984. In the above circumstances, the
request for adjournment was refused.
16. It does appear that the management was abusing the process of law by filing repeated
applications seeking adjournments. In the circumstances, the rejection of the said
application moved for adjourning the case by the management was justified.
17. Turning to the impugned Award dated 2nd April 1984, the record shows that the
workman placed on record the documents Ex. WW2/1 to WW-2/35 and W-2/36 to WW-
2/52. The workman was cross-examined and he stood firm. The stand of the workman
was supported by the affidavit of Sumer Chand Jain, a witness for the workman. As
regards the charge of insubordination, again, the evidence adduced by the management
did not support its case. Consequently, the reference was answered in favour of the
workman and he was directed to be reinstated with full back wages.
18. This Court is again unable to find any legal infirmity in the impugned Award of the
Labour Court which is entirely based on an appreciation of the evidence led before it.
19. For all of the aforementioned reasons, there is no ground made out for interference
with any of the impugned orders and the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court. It
is time to draw the curtain on a long tortuous course of litigation which began forty-three
W.P. (C) No. 199 of 1985 Page 6 of 7
years ago with the dismissal of the workman in September 1968. The writ petition is
dismissed with costs of Rs. 30,000/- which will be paid by the Petitioner to the LRs of
Respondent No. 4 workman within a period of four weeks from today. The interim order
is vacated. All pending applications are disposed of.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
AUGUST 26, 2011
akg
W.P. (C) No. 199 of 1985 Page 7 of 7