AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Aggarwal, J.
C.M. No. 4207/2009 (Exemption) in W.P. (C) No. 7865/2009
Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) No. 7865/2009
This writ petition filed by the workman (petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated 26.11.2008 passed by Dr. Shahabuddin, POLC XVI, Delhi rejecting his claim for reinstatement and back wages.
Heard.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed by respondent No. 1 as Steel Mechanic 18 years prior to his dismissal from service w.e.f. 01.07.1998. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 12.03.1997 (at pages 30-32 of the paper book). The charge-sheet was issued to him as per Clauses 20(d) & 20 (i) of the Certified Standing Orders applicable in the establishment of respondent No. 1. Domestic inquiry was held against the petitioner in which he was found guilty of charges leveled against him. The charge against him was that though he was employed by the petitioner but he diverted the customers of respondent No. 1 to a third party M/s Krishna Enterprises and was thereby acting dishonestly in the course of his employment with the respondent No. 1. The specific incidents of different dates when the petitioner had diverted the customers of respondent No. 1 to M/s Krishna Enterprises were disclosed in the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner. The Court below on the basis of evidence adduced before it vide its order dated 06.11.2008 has decided the inquiry issue against the workman holding that the principles of natural justice were duly adhered to in the conduct of domestic inquiry against the petitioner.
I do not find any perversity either in the order dated 06.11.2008 by which inquiry issue was decided against the workman or order dated 26.11.2008 by which the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner has been found to be justified. These orders do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It may be noted that the findings of fact to the effect that the petitioner in the course of his employment with respondent No. 1 had been diverting the customers of respondent No. 1 dishonestly and with mala-fide intention to M/s Krishan Enterprises operating its business from 319-20, Aap Ka Bazar, Gurgaon and was thereby causing loss to respondent No. 1 management, is based upon cogent evidence discussed in the impugned award. The petitioner has not assailed these findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court in the impugned award anywhere in the present writ petition. Mr. Dinesh Yadav learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was repeatedly asked to show even a line in the whole of the writ petition where the petitioner might have controverted the finding of fact in regard to the above in his petition but Mr. Yadav could not show that the petitioner has controverted the findings of fact contained in the impugned order.
Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.