Petitioner challenged Labour Court award granting Rs.2,00,000 compensation to respondent for unjustifiable termination after solitary absence. High Court noted no evidence of multiple absences, dismissed petition, and affirmed compensation award.
Writ petition and connected application dismissed; Labour Court award upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 4th October, 2016
NIRULAS CORNER HOUSE PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Hari Shankar Kanujia and Mr. Chetanya Puri, Advocates with Ms. Pooja Sharma, AR in person.
Versus
JITENDER KUMAR PANT ..... Respondent Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
W.P.(C) 8321/2016
Page 1 of 5
from service, nevertheless, in the present case, there was not only one incident when the workman himself remained absent from duty. He further submits that the petitioner remained absent from duty not for one day but for a number of days.
“14. On the second ground, Id. ARW argued that entry of the claimant was banned in the premises of the management and that is why he could not mark his attendance. On the other hand, it has been argued by Id. ARM that claimant has failed to prove that his entry was barred. The first correspondence done by the claimant with the management after 27.08.1995 is Ex. WW2/3 dated 01.09.1995. In that correspondence, he mentioned four reasons of his dis-satisfaction with the management. The first reason is that there was variation in his pay. The second one is of frequent transfer. Third one is demotion to lower post. Fourth and last one is refusal by management for attendance and duty. It is pertinent to mention that letter Ex. WW2/3 was written by the claimant to management in response to transfer order dated 25.08.1995. If the management had banned his entry or was not allowing him to mark his attendance, he should have mentioned that fact as the ground No.l for his dis-satisfaction with the management. Instead of doing so, he mentioned that ground in the last. It shows that the main reasons of dis-satisfaction with the management were variation in pay, frequent transfer and demotion. As per his evidence and document, he was refused duty by F & B Manager Mr. Subhash Sethi. The claimant had filed statement of claim Ex.WWl/Ml before Conciliation Officer on 06.10.1995. It is mentioned in para No. 5 of Ex. WWl/Ml that F & B Manager Mr.Subhash Sethi had demoted him orally on 27.08.1995 and when he asked the reason, he refused him to punch the
W.P.(C) 8321/2016
Page 2 of 5
card for attendance. It is further mentioned that thereafter, he was visiting the management regularly, but he was not allowed to mark presence. Such assertions show that his entry was not barred in the premises of the management. It is mentioned in para No. 9 of Ex. WW2/M1 that he had visited the management on 19.09.1995. On that day, he was asked by Mr. Subhash Sethi to submit his documents so that he may discuss his case with seniors and colleagues within 3-4 days after 19.09.1995. It proves that his entry was not banned before 19.09.1995. He did not furnish explanation why he did not do any duty before his entry was banned. Mr. Subhash Sethi had demoted the claimant and had also issued transfer letter. Despite it, why did he believe him by submitting original documents with him? The claimant did not furnish any explanation. Moreover, there are some purchase receipts Ex. WW2/7 collectively. These have been relied upon by the claimant and his AR argued that his client had visited the management several times for duty, but the management did not allow him to mark presence. Such plea is contradictory to the plea of banning of entry. These receipts are dated 04.09.95, 21.09.1995, 25.09.1995, 26.09.1995, 27.09.1995, 29.09.1995, 30.09.1995, 05.10.1995 and 10.10.1995. If these receipts are acted upon in favour of the claimant, these prove that the claimant's entry was not banned in the premises of the management till 10.10.1995. So, this ground also fails.
W.P.(C) 8321/2016
Page 3 of 5
Member concept w.e.f. 10.09.1993. Accordingly, the claimant was being re-designated as Team Member-5 (TM5). That letter proves to the hilt that claimant was redesignated as TM-5 in the year 1993 and not in 1995. That fact was admitted by the claimant in statement of claim Ex. WWl/Ml also filed before Conciliation Officer. It is mentioned in para No. 4(d) of Ex. WW2/M1 that the management had suddenly demoted him as TM-5 without any reason in October, 1993. These documents prove that re-designation of the claimant was on 10.09.1993 and not on 25.08.1995. All the correspondences like Ex. WW2/3, Ex. WW2/4 and Ex. WW2/5 made by him with the management about demotion on 27.08.1995 are absolutely false. The proper time for the claimant to agitate against re-designation was in September, 1993. He had no occasion to agitate after transfer order on 25.08.1995. So, the claimant has failed to justify any reason for non-joining the management at the transferred place.
W.P.(C) 8321/2016
Page 4 of 5
illegal, but it is unjustifiable.”
(NAJMI WAZIRI) JUDGE
OCTOBER 04, 2016 sb
W.P.(C) 8321/2016
Page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lump sum compensation awarded to the workman for unjustifiable termination was correctly calculated based on the period of unemployment.
Whether there is any merit in the petitioner's contention that the workman was absent for multiple days prior to termination.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's award of compensation holding removal legal but punishment disproportionate.
NIRULAS CORNER HOUSE PVT LTD
JITENDER KUMAR PANT
NAJMI WAZIRI
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
