INTHECOURTOFSH.[ENTITY]: PRESIDINGOFFICERINDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL, DWARKACOURTS,NEWDELHI [CASE NUMBER](OldNo.06/10) [ENTITY]. Vs. [ENTITY] S/oRam LalSingh, VillageandP.O Kasna, GreaterNoida,GautamBudhNagar,U.P. ORDERONTHEENQUIRYISSUE 1. Presentapprovalapplicationu/s33(2)(b)oftheIndustrialDisputes Act,1947hasbeenfiledonbehalfoftheapplicant/managementseeking approvalofitsactionofdismissingtheservicesoftherespondent/workman. 2. It is stated in the present approval application that the applicant/ management is a premier hospital in the capital of India which started functioningintheyear1958;thatasahospital,theapplicant/managementis notan'industry'withinthemeaningofSection2(j)ofIndustrialDisputes Act,1947; thathowever thepresentapplicationisbeingfiledbywayof abundantcaution;thattherespondent/workmanwasappointedasaWard Boy w.e.f. 09.03.1992 vide appointment letter dated 24.03.1992; that the respondent/workmanindulgedinvariousactsofseriousmisconductandacts subversiveofdiscipline;thatachargesheetdated06.07.2006wasissuedto the respondent/ workman to which no explanation was submitted by the respondent/workman;thatvideletterdated20.07.2006Sh.AnilBhattwas [CASE NUMBER] Page1of39 appointedasEnquiryOfficertoenquireintothechargesleveledagainstthe respondent/workman,wholaterexpressedhisinabilitytoholdtheenquiry andSh.[ENTITY]wasthenappointedasanEnquiryOfficervideletter dated 03.01.2007 for conducting the enquiry; that the Enquiry Officer conductedtheenquiryinaccordancewiththeprinciplesofnaturaljustice andtherespondent/workmanwasgivenfullopportunitytodefendhimself; thatrespondent/workmancrossexaminedallthemanagementwitnessesand alsoproducedwitnessesinhisdefence;thatuponconclusionoftheenquiry, theEnquiryOfficersubmittedhisreportdated12.04.2007wherebyhefound therespondent/workmanguiltyofthechargesleveledagainsthim;thata copyofenquiryreportalongwithshowcausenoticedated14.04.2007was senttotherespondent/workmanandhegavehiscommentsontheenquiry reportvidehisletterdated25.04.2007;thattheapplicant/managementafter consideringthereportofenquiry,enquiryproceedingsandthecommentsof the respondent/ workman held the respondent/ workman guilty of the chargesleveledvidechargesheetdated06.07.2006andconsideringthepast record of the respondent/ workman, his services were dismissed by the applicant/ management vide dismissal order dated 18.05.2007; that the respondent/ workman is not concerned in the pending I.D. Nos.71/2005, 90/2005and01/2005beforethisTribunalandtheaforesaidreference are withoutjurisdictionandarenotindustrialdispute;thathencenoapproval may be required; that however, as an abundant caution the applicant/ management is moving the present approval application simultaneously whileissuingthedismissalorder;thattherespondent/workmanasperthe provisionsofSection33(2)(b)ofIndustrialDisputesAct,1947hasbeen paidanamountequaltoonemonthwagesandasumofRs.300/moreto make up deficiency, if any, simultaneously with the moving of this [CASE NUMBER] Page2of39 application by way of depositing Rs.3,969/ in the saving bank account no.132216ofMr.ChanderPalSinghatAllahabadBank,MCKRHExtn. Counter,LajpatNagarIII,NewDelhi18.05.2007;thattheenquiryagainst therespondent/workmanhasbeenheldinaccordancewiththeprinciplesof naturaljustice,however,incasethisHon'bleTribunalholdsthatenquiryis vitiatedforanyreasonwhatsoever,theapplicant/managementcravesleave ofthisTribunaltoleadevidencetoprovethechargesleveledagainstthe respondent/workman. 3. Itisprayedtoholdthattheapplicant/managementisnotan'industry' withinthemeaningofSection2(j)ofIndustrialDisputesAct,1947;thatthe pending references registered as I.D. Nos.1/05, 71/05 and 90/05 are not industrialdisputeswithinthemeaningofSection2(k)ofIndustrialDisputes Act,1947andthattherespondent/workmanisnotworkmanconcernedin thesaidreferencesandfurtherthattheapprovalu/s33(2)(b)ofIndustrial DisputesAct,1947isnotrequired;thatifitisheldthatapprovalisrequired, thentodecidethevalidityofdomesticenquiryaspreliminaryissueandhold theenquiryasfairandproper;thatiftheenquiryissetaside,thentogrant opportunity to the applicant/ management to lead evidence to prove the chargesbeforethisTribunal;thattograntapprovaltotheactionofapplicant/ managementindismissingtherespondent/workmanfromservicesandany otherorderwhichthisTribunaldeemsfit. 4. In reply filed by the respondent/workman to the instant approval application,ithasbeensubmittedthatapplicant/managementisanindustry; thathisserviceshavebeenterminatedonaccountofhistradeunionactivities andindefendingI.D.Nos.1/2005,71/2005,71/2005and90/2005;thatasper therulesoftheapplicant/management,noenquirycouldbeconductedbyan outsider against therespondent/workman;thattheenquiryisagainstthe [CASE NUMBER] Page3of39 settledprinciplesofnaturaljustice;thattheamountpaidtohimfallsshortof onemonth'swagessincethebalanceamountduetohimtowardssubsistence allowanceandwageswerenotpaidtohimalongwiththeallegedwagesfor onemonth;thatitappearsthatsomepartoftheapplicationismissingfrom thecopiesappliedtotherespondent/workmanbythemanagement;thatthe workmanreserveshisrighttoreplytothesameasandwhenthesameis supplied. Other averments made in the approval application have been deniedanddismissalofthesamehasbeenprayedfor. 5. Inrejoinder,alltheavermentsofapprovalapplicationarereaffirmed andofthereplyaredeniedbytheapplicant/management. 6. Onthepleadingsofthepartiesvideorderdated14.07.2009,the followingissueswereframed: 1. Whether the management has conducted fair and proper enquiryagainsttheworkman?OPM. 2. Whethertheworkmanhascommittedseriousmisconduct?If so,itseffect. 3. Relief. Nootherissuearoseorpressedforandthecasewasadjournedfor managementevidenceontheenquiryissuewhichwastreatedaspreliminary issue. 7. ManagementhasledtheevidenceofSh.[ENTITY] EnquiryOfficerasMW1inMEontheenquiryissuewhohasfiledhis affidavitbywayofevidenceEx.MW1/AasalsorelieduponExts.MW1/1 andMW1/2,asmentionedinthesame,whicharethecompleterecordofthe enquiryproceedingsalongwiththedocuments,Ex.MW1/1(Colly),andthe enquiry report dated 12.04.2007 of the enquiry officer, Ex.MW1/2, vide whichhehasdeposedthatheconducteddomesticenquiryinthepresent [CASE NUMBER] Page4of39 matteragainsttheworkmanwithreferencetochargesheetdated06.07.2006 againsthim;thatthecompleterecordoftheenquiryproceedingsalongwith documents is Ex.MW1/1 (Colly); that after completion of enquiry he submittedhisenquiryreportdated12.04.2007whichisEx.MW1/2(Colly); thatheconductedtheenquiryinaccordancewiththeprinciplesofnatural justice;thatasperhisenquiryreporthefoundthechargesheetedemployee Sh.ChanderPalSinghguiltyofthechargesleveledagainsthim. 8.Inhiscrossexaminationonbehalfoftheworkman,hehasdeposed thatatthetimeofenquiryhewasnotinserviceofthemanagement;thathe did not remember whether the management had provided him a copy of service rules governing the conditions of service of workman; that by professionhewasanAdvocate;thatwhateverdocumentswereprovidedto himbythemanagementhadbeenbroughtonrecordofenquiry;thathehas alsobeenpaidtheprofessionalfeesforconductingtheenquiry;thatitwas correctthatduringthecourseofenquiryworkmandemandedthathemaybe allowedtoberepresentedintheenquirybyanofficebearerofMoolChand HospitalKaramchariUnionbutthedemandwasdeclinedbyhim;Vol.Since the office bearer whose help was sought by workman was a dismissed employee;thatitwaswrongtosuggestthatthecopiesofdocumentsbrought onrecordofenquirywerenotsuppliedtoworkman;thatitwaswrongto suggest that no opportunity was given to workman to cross examine the witnessesofmanagement;thatitwaswrongtosuggestthatworkmanwas not allowed to bring documents in his defence and also prevented from bringingwitnessesofhischoiceinhisdefence;thatitwaswrongtosuggest thatenquirywasconductedbyhimagainstprinciplesofnaturaljusticeunder instructionsofmanagement;thatitwaswrongtosuggestthathewasbiased andpartisaninholdingtheenquiry;thatitwaswrongtosuggestthathehad [CASE NUMBER] Page5of39 filedfalseaffidavitanddeposingfalsely. 9. ManagementexaminedSh.[ENTITY]Manager (Pers./HRD) as MW2inthemanagementevidence,whoinhisexaminationinchiefbyway ofaffidavitbywayofevidencehasreiteratedcontentsofinstantapproval application.HehasalsoreliedupondocumentsExts.MW2/1toMW2/5,in thesame,onrecord.However,itisseenthatthisMWisnotawitnesstothe enquiryissueandhasdeposedinrespectoftheproceedingsconductedbythe managementagainsttherespondent/workmanonconclusionoftheenquiry proceedingsagainsthimandsubmissionofthereportoftheenquiryofficer tothemanagementthereonandhasnotbeencrossexaminedonbehalfofthe workman. Thereafter,managementevidenceontheenquiryissuehasbeenclosed, onrecord,andthecasewasfixedforrebuttalworkmanevidence. 10. In rebuttal workman evidence on the enquiry issue, the respondent/workmanhasappearedasWW1,filedhisaffidavitbywayof evidenceEx.WW1/Ainthesame,andreliedupondocumentEx.WW1/1. InhisaffidavitbywayofevidenceEx.WW1/A,hehasdeposedthatthe enquiryconductedbythemanagementagainsthimwasagainsttheprinciples ofnaturaljustice;thathewasnotgivenopportunitytodefendhimselfinthe enquiry;thataspertherulesofthehospitalnooutsidercouldhavebeen appointedasanEnquiryOfficer,however,Sh.[ENTITY],Advocatewho conductedtheenquirywasanoutsiderandapracticingadvocate;thathewas partisan and an agent of the management; that the management did not followtherulesofthehospitalwhileconductingthedomesticenquiry;that thoughthemanagement hadspecificrulesandproceduresformulatedfor conducting domestic enquiry,the saidrules were neither filedbefore the domesticenquirynorbeforethisHon'ble Court;thatthemanagementwas [CASE NUMBER] Page6of39 concealing material facts with respect to the rules and procedures in conductingadomesticenquiry;thatonhisdemandpartoftheruleswere suppliedtohimintheenquiry;thatcopyofthesameisEx.WW1/1;thatat the initial stages of the enquiry itself on 08.02.2007, he had sought the permission of the enquiry officer to bring Sh. [ENTITY], General SecretaryoftheMoolChandKharaitiRamHospitalKaramchariUnionof whichhewasamemberashisdefenceassistantbutthesamewasturned downbythe Enquiry Officer in anarbitrarymanner; that heis class IV employeeandhehadnoknowledgeabouttheenquiryanditsprocedure;that if he was allowed a defence assistant he would have helped him in the enquiryandalsoitwouldhavepreventedtheenquiryofficerfromrecording theenquiryproceedingsarbitrarily;thatthepermissiontobringSh.[ENTITY] notrecordtheenquiryproceedingsinatruthfullmanner;thathedidnot recordhissubmissionsintheenquiry;thathedidnotrecordhissubmission regardingrulesoftheenquiry;thathedidnotevenrecordintheenquirythat part of the rules were supplied to him; that he did not supply him the documents of the proceedings MW13 filed in the enquiry; that in the absenceofanydefenceassistantintheproceedingsoftheenquiryhecould not cross examine any of the management witnesses; that the cross examinationwasdonebytheenquiryofficerhimselfandherecordedthatthe crossexaminationwasdonebyhim;thatthefindingsoftheEnquiryOfficer wereperverseandnotbasedonthematerialonrecord;thatnoreasonable personcouldhavereachedattheconclusionreachedbyEnquiryOfficerin thedomesticenquiryandthefindingswereperverseandnotbasedonthe materialonrecord;thatthedomesticenquiryisthusliabletobesetaside [CASE NUMBER] Page7of39 beingagainsttheprinciplesofnaturaljustice. 11.Inhiscrossexaminationonbehalfoftheapplicant/managementinthe rebuttalWEontheenquiryissue,WW1hasdeposedthatheishighschool passed; thathecouldnotreadEnglish;thatheknewonlyHindi;thathe couldnotreadhisaffidavit;thathedidnotknowwhatwaswritteninhis affidavitEx.WW1/A;thathisaffidavitwaspreparedbyhisadvocate;thatit was correct that charge sheet dated 6.7.06 was given to him and the managementconductedtheenquirywhichhadbeenfiledbeforethisHon'ble Tribunal;thathehadparticipatedintheenquirybutsometimeinbetweenhe wasnotinformedbytheenquiryofficerabouttheenquiryproceedings;that hedidnotknowwhichproceedingswereheldbyenquiryproceedingsathis back,evenhecouldnotidentifytheproceedingsevenfromtherecordwhich had been held at his back; that he had signed the enquiry proceedings wheneverhecametoattendtheenquiry;thatmanagementwitnesses had comeintheenquiry,thoseattendedtheenquiryinhispresence;thatitwas correct that statement of management witnesses were recorded in his presenceinenquiryproceedings;thathehadnotcrossexaminedthem;that hehadgivenhisstatementintheenquiryproceedingsinhisdefence.Vol. Buthisstatementhadnotbeenrecordedcorrectly;thataccordingtohim,his statement, which was not recorded by Enquiry Officer was that he was callingto Mr. [ENTITY] General Secretary of union as his defence assistantintheenquiry;thatwastheonlystatementwhichhewasrepeating intheenquirybutwasnotwrittenintheEnquiryOfficerintheproceedings; thattheenquiryproceedingswheneverheparticipatedintheenquirywasnot providedtohim;thatItiswrongtosuggestthatenquiryproceedingshad been given to him and he had written on that "copy received" with his signatures;thathedidnotrememberwhetherhehadwrittenanyletterto [CASE NUMBER] Page8of39 management or to Enquiry Officer that he was not receiving enquiry proceedings.Vol.Hehadwrittenapplicationtomanagementregardingnot providinghimdocuments;thathedidnotrememberastowhetherhewrote anylettertothemanagementbeforemanagementtodemandanydocument; thathedidnotrememberwhichdocumentshewasdemandingatthattime; thatitwaswrongtosuggestthat hisaforesaidstatementwasincorrector thatheneverdemandedanydocument;thathehadnotreceivedanycharge sheet other than one dated 6.7.06; that it was wrong to suggest that he receivedchargesheetsandshowcausenoticesondifferentdatesandhehad alsofiledthereplyofthesamewhichisonrecord;thatSh.[ENTITY] wasnotthedismissedemployeeatthetimeofhisenquiry;thathedidnot knowwhenSh.[ENTITY]wasdismissedfromhisservices;thatitwas wrongtosuggestthatheisdeposingfalselythatSh.[ENTITY]wasnot thedismissedemployee;thatitwascorrectthat hewasnotinterestedto makeanyotherpersonexceptSh.[ENTITY]assistantin theenquiry.Vol.Sh.[ENTITY]GeneralSecretaryoftheunion; thathedidnothaveanydocumenttoshowthatSh.[ENTITY] GeneralSecretaryatthetimeofhisenquiryorevenonthatdate;thatitwas correctthatifhehadwrittenanylettertothemanagementregardinghis enquiry,thoselettershadbeenhandedovertoEnquiryOfficer;thathehad seenthedocumentsofenquiryproceedingsandheexaminedhisletterthatit hadbeenplacedonrecordornot;thathecouldreadandwriteHindi;thathe couldidentifyhishandwritingontheenquiryproceedings;Vol.Hewasnot providedwiththecopyoftheenquiryproceedingsanddocuments,buthis signatures were obtained by the Enquiry Officer; that he filed written complaint with Enquiry Officer regarding not providing him the copyof enquiryproceedings,however,hehadnotfiledonrecordcopyofthesame; [CASE NUMBER] Page9of39 thathehadnotfiledonrecordanyreceiptofcomplaintmadeinwriting;Vol. Management refused to give acknowledgement of the receiving of the complaint;thathedidnotfileanycomplainttoLabourDepartmentofDelhi Govt. in this regard, however, he gave oral information to union office bearers;thatitwaswrongtosuggestthathewasdeposingfalselyinthis regard. Thereafter,rebuttalworkmanevidencehasbeenclosed,onrecord. 12. I have heard arguments from Dr.[ENTITY], Ld. AR for applicant/management and Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. AR for respondent/workman and also have carefully gone through record of the case. Writtensubmissionsfiledonbehalfoftheparties, Ld.ARforthe applicant/management has also relied upon citations viz. [ENTITY]Vs.NCTofDelhi,2006(130)DLT292(DB); DTCVs.RajbirSingh,2010(169)DLT177,(Delhi);HotelCorporationof IndiaVs.SudeshKumarJulka,2012(192)DLT493(Delhi);LalaRam Vs.ManagementofDCMChemicalsWorksLtd.,AIR1978SC1004;D.G. Railway Protection Force Vs. [ENTITY], 2008 (4) SCC 406; ManagementofNationalSeedsCorporationLtd.Vs.[ENTITY], 2006(111)FLR819;TheManagerBoisahabiTeaEstateVs.[ENTITY], 1981 LAB.IC.557 (GUA); [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY]/sTiscoLimitedVs.[ENTITY], RamParveshSingh,AIR2008SC1162. [CASE NUMBER] Page10of39 13. ItisseenfromtherecordthatmanagementbywayofitsMW1Sh. [ENTITY],EnquiryOfficer,whoisallegedtohaveconductedthedomestic enquiryagainsttheworkmaninrespectoftheallegationsofmisconductof themanagementagainsttheworkmanvideitschargesheetdated06.07.2006 has proved,on record,thecopy of the enquiryproceedings held by him alongwiththedocumentsinthesameasEx.MW1/1(Colly)pagenos.1to 62intheinstantproceedings,onrecord,asalsoprovedtheenquiryreport dated12.04.2007 givenbyhimonconclusionofthesaidproceedings as Ex.MW1/2(Colly)pagenos.64to73intheinstantproceedings,onrecord. 14.Itisfurtherseenfromtherecordthatthecopyofthechargesheet dated 06.07.2006 containing the allegations of misconduct of the managementagainsttheworkmaninrespectwhereoftheinstantenquiryhas beenconductedonitspartagainsttheworkmanisatpageno.11ofthe enquiry proceedings Ex.MW1/1 (Colly), which is to the effect that the workman is running absent from his duties with the management w.e.f. 02.06.2006withoutanyintimationorleaveofabsencetothemanagementin thisregard;thatprioralsotheworkmanisinthehabitofremainingabsent from his duty; that vide letter dated 09.06.2006, the workman had been asked to report forthwith on his duties as also to submit his written explanation in this regard to which the workman vide his letter dated 16.06.2006hadintimatedthathehadmetwithanaccidentandonaccount oftheailmentofpaininhisbackandstomachhasbeenunabletoreportfor his duties w.e.f. 03.06.2006 and that on regaining his health, he would report for his duties; that vide registered letter dated 20.06.2006 the managementhadaskedhimtosubmittherelevantdocumentsregardinghis reportedaccidentasalsomedicalrecordetc.within24hoursofthereceipt ofthesaidlettertotheAssistantManager(Personnel)ofthemanagementin [CASE NUMBER] Page11of39 orderforthereasonforhisremainingabsent asallegedbyhimcouldbe verified but the workman has not provided any proof in respect of the alleged accident as also any medical record in respect of his alleged ailment;thatinthisregardvideanotherregisteredletterdated26.06.2006, theworkmanhadbeenprovidedwithafinalopportunitybythemanagement inthis regardbut theworkmanhasnotprovidedanydocument/proofin respectoftheallegedaccidentorhisailmentasalleged,accordingly,the workman is running absent from his duties with the management w.e.f. 02.06.2006 without any intimation and/or leave of his absence to the managementinthisregardasalsothatinordertodefendhimselfofbeing on unauthorised leave w.e.f. the said date he is falsely claiming to be involvedinallegedaccidentasotherwisehewouldhaveprovidednecessary prooftothemanagementinthisregard,accordinglythesaidactiononhis part amounts to grave misconduct viz. (i) remaining absent from duties withoutintimationorleaveofthecompetentauthorityinthisregard(ii) takingrecoursetofalsedefenceforhisunauthorizedabsencefromduty(iii) wilfulldisobediencetoordersofthesuperiorauthority. 15. ItisfurtherseenfromtherecordthatincrossexaminationMW1Sh. [ENTITY],Enquiryofficerofthemanagementhasdeniedthesuggestions onbehalfoftheworkmanthat itwaswrongtosuggestthatthecopiesof documentsbroughtonrecordofenquirywerenotsuppliedtoworkman;that itwaswrongtosuggestthatnoopportunitywasgiventoworkmantocross examinethewitnessesofthemanagement;thatitwaswrongtosuggestthat workman was not allowed to bring documents in his defence and also preventedfrombringingwitnessesofhischoiceinhisdefence;thatitwas wrongtosuggestthatinquirywasconductedbyhimagainstprinciplesof natural justice under instructions of management; that it was wrong to [CASE NUMBER] Page12of39 suggestthathewasbiasedandpartisaninholdingtheinquiry;thatitwas wrongtosuggestthathehadfiledfalseaffidavitanddeposingfalsely. He hasdeposedthatitwascorrectthatduringthecourseofenquiryworkman demandedthathemaybeallowedtoberepresentedintheenquirybyan officebearerofMoolchandHospitalKaramchariUnionbutthedemandwas declined by him since the office bearer whose help was sought by the workmanwasadismissedemployee. 16. Itisseenfromtherecordthatworkman/WW1Sh.[ENTITY] havingdeposedinhisaffidavitbywayofevidenceEx.WW1/Ainrebuttal workmanevidenceontheenquiryissuethat theenquiryconductedbythe managementagainsthimwasagainsttheprinciplesofnaturaljustice;that hewasnotgivenanyopportunitytodefendhimselfintheenquiry;thatas per therules ofthehospitalnooutsidercouldhavebeenappointedan enquiry officer, however, Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate who conducted the enquirywasanoutsiderandapracticingadvocate,asabovesaid,however,it is seen from the record that the workman has admitted in his cross examinationonbehalfofthemanagementinrebuttalworkmanevidenceon theenquiryissuethatitwascorrectthatchargesheetdated06.07.2006was giventohimandthemanagementconductedtheenquirywhichhadbeen filedbeforethisHon'bleTribunal;thathehadparticipatedintheenquiry butsometimeinbetweenhewasnotinformedbytheenquiryofficerabout the enquiry proceedings; that he had signed the enquiry proceedings wheneverhecametoattendtheenquiry;thatmanagementwitnesshadcome intheenquiry,thoseattendedtheenquiryinhispresence;thatitwascorrect thatstatementofmanagementwitnesseswererecordedinhispresencein enquiry proceedings; that he had not cross examined them; that he had givenstatementintheenquiryproceedingsinhisdefence;thattheenquiry [CASE NUMBER] Page13of39 proceedings wheneverheparticipatedintheenquiry,wasnotprovidedto him; that he did not remember whether he had written any letter to management or to enquiry officer that he was not receiving enquiry proceedings;thathedidnotrememberastowhetherhewroteanyletterto themanagementbeforemanagementtodemandanydocument;thathedid notrememberwhichdocumenthewasdemandingatthattime;thathehad notreceivedanychargesheetotherthanonedated06.07.2006;thatitwas correct that he was not interested to make any other person except Sh. [ENTITY]assistantintheenquiry;thathedidnothave anydocumenttoshowthatSh.[ENTITY]GeneralSecretaryat thetimeofhisenquiryorevenonthatdatethatitwascorrectthatifhehad writtenanylettertothemanagementregardinghisenquirythoselettershad beenhandedovertotheenquiryofficer;thathehadseenthedocumentsof enquiryproceedingsandheexaminedhisletterthatithadbeenplacedon record or not; that it was correct that enquiry proceedings whenever suppliedtohimhereceivedthesamebymentioningthesewordsandsigned theenquiryproceedings;thatitwascorrectthatmanagementexaminedthe witnessesintheenquiryandhehadalsogivenhisstatementanddefence; thatitwascorrectthatchargesheetandwarningweregiventohim;thatit wascorrectthatwheneverhereceivedwarningandchargesheetpriorto presentchargesheethefiledhisreplywheneverhereceivedthesame;that Mr.[ENTITY]wastheenquiryofficer;thatitwascorrectthatattendance ofallthepersonspresentintheenquiry,theirattendancewerebeingmarked everytimeoneachproceeding;thatitwascorrectthathewasnotinterested intheenquiryintheabsenceofSh.[ENTITY] managementtorepresenthimashisrepresentative;thatitwascorrectthat managementwasdepositinghissalaryinthebanksituatedinpremisesof [CASE NUMBER] Page14of39 thehospital;thatthemanagementwasdepositinghissalaryonfirstdayof subsequentmonth;thathewasnoteversuspendedbythemanagementafter servingchargesheetdated06.07.2006;thathewasintheemploymenteven afterthesaidchargesheetwasserveduponhim;thathecontinuedinthe employmenttillhisdismissal. 17. Itisfurtherseenfromtherecordthatvidetheenquiryproceedings Ex.MW1/1(Colly),thefirsthearinghastakenplaceon31.01.2007inwhich the Enquiry Officer along with the management representative and the delinquentemployee,theworkmanarepresent.Itisfurtherseenfromthe samethatworkmanhasadmittedthathehasreceivedthechargesheetdated 06.07.2006, thechargesheethasbeenreadoverbytheEnquiryofficerto the workman to which the workman has pleaded not guilty, then the proceedingshavecommenced.Itisfurtherrecordedthat theworkmanhad beenintimatedregardingtheappointmentoftheenquiryofficertoconduct the domestic enquiry set up by the management against him; that the procedureoftheenquiryhasbeenexplainedtoboththesideswhichwould beconductedinaccordancewiththeprinciplesofnaturaljustice;thatatthe firstinstanceboththesideswouldfiletheirdocumentsonwhichtheyare relyingandthereafterthemanagementwouldpresentitswitnessesandthe workman would have all the rights to cross examine them; that on the conclusion of the management evidence, the workman would present his defenceevidence,andthemanagementwouldhavethefullrighttocross examinethedefencewitnesses;thatthechargedemployeewouldbegiven completeopportunitytopresenthisdefencetothechargesagainsthiminthe enquiry;thatonexplanationoftheprocedureoftheconductoftheenquiry, noobjectionhasbeenraisedbyanyofthesides,whoaresatisfiedofthe same;thatthechargedemployeehasopportunitytotaketheservicesofany [CASE NUMBER] Page15of39 ofhiscoemployeeasadefenceassistantintheenquiry. It has been further recorded that on the next date of hearing viz. 08.02.2007,theenquiryofficer,managementrepresentativeasalsocharged employeearepresent;thatthemanagementhasfileditsdocumentswhich are marked from M1 to M13, copies of which have been given to the workman;thatthechargedemployeehasgivenaletterwhichismarkedW1, in which he has asked for taking the services of Sh. [ENTITY] as representative/coworkman, that as per the rules of the management the enquirywasnotbeingconductedbythecompetentperson,thattheenquiry was being conducted against the principles of natural justice; that the managementwillreplytothisletteronthenextdateofhearing;thatonthe nextdateofhearingbothsideswillfiletheirlistofwitnesses;thatincase theworkmanhastosubmitanydocuments,heshouldfilethesameonthe nextdateofhearingasalsomakeitclearastohowtheenquiryisbeing conductedagainsttheprinciplesofnaturaljustice. It is further recorded that on 17.02.2007 the enquiry officer, managementrepresentativeandthedelinquentemployeearepresent;that onthelastdate,thechargesheetedemployeehadgivenaletterW1which wastoberepliedbythemanagement;thatthemanagementhasfiled its replytothesameonthatdate,whichismarkedM31inwhichithasbeen writtenthatSh.[ENTITY]isadismissedemployeeofthemanagement andthatheisnotpermittedtobebroughtasrepresentativeintheenquiry, thedomesticenquiryhasbeenconstitutedbythecompetentpersonandthat ithasbeenconductedinaccordancewiththeprinciplesofnaturaljustice; thatvidetheinstantreply,theletterW1oftheworkmanstandsdisposedoff; that the workman can only take the services of coworkman as defence assistant, copy of M31 is given to the workman; that meaning of co [CASE NUMBER] Page16of39 workman is that workman/employee who is in the employment of the management;thatthechargesheetedemployeewastofilehisdocumentson that date but he states that he would do so on the next date; that the managementwouldpresentitslistofwitnessesandwitnessesonthenext date;thatiftheworkmandoesnotfilehisdocumentsonthenextdateit wouldbedeemedthatheisnottofileanydocuments. Itisfurtherrecordedthatonthenextdateofhearingviz.22.02.2007, the Enquiry Officer, management representative and charge sheeted employeearepresent;thatthechargesheetedemployeehasfiledcopyofa medicalcertificate,whichistakenonrecord,andmarkedasW2;thatheis nottofileanyotherdocument;thatstatementofMW1Sh.[ENTITY] Deputy Manager(Personnel)ofthemanagementhasbeenrecorded,who has been cross examined by the workman and the enquiry has been adjourned for the remaining evidence of the management as also for defenceevidenceto28.02.2007at02.30P.Mwiththedirectionsthatboth thesidestocomeprepared. That on 28.02.2007, ithas been recordedthat the workman/charge sheeted employee has intimated through telephone that on account of weatherbeingbadhewouldnotbeabletoattendtheenquiryonthatdate, hence,theenquiryproceedingshavebeenadjournedto06.03.2007,which facthasbeenintimatedtoboththepartiesontelephone. That on 06.03.2007, it has been recorded that the enquiry officer, management representative as also the charge sheeted employee are present;thatithasbeenstatedthatthemanagementdoesnotwishtolead anyevidenceofanyotherwitnessandhavefiledtheattendancerecordw.e.f. 04/2006 to 02/2007, copy of which has been given to the chargesheeted employee;thatithasbeentakenonrecordandmarkedasM32;thatthe [CASE NUMBER] Page17of39 managementhascloseditsevidence;thatthechargesheetedemployeehas beenaskedtosubmithisdocuments,ifany,andlistofwitnessestowhichit hasbeenstatedbythechargesheetedemployeethathewoulddosoonthe nextdateofhearing. Thaton13.03.2007itisrecordedthattheenquiryofficer,management representativeandchargesheetedemployeearepresent;thattheworkman hasinformedtheenquiryofficeronmobilephonethathecannotbepresent onthatdateduetobeingill;thatitisthesubmittedbythemanagementthat thechargesheetedemployeeisdeliberatelydelayingtheproceedingsofthe enquiry; that previously on 28.02.2007 he had not attended the enquiry proceedingsonthegroundofweatherbeingbadandthattheproceedingsbe proceededexpartetheworkman;that,however,the enquiryofficerisnot inclinedtoproceedtheenquiryexpartetheworkmanandintheinterestof justice opportunity is granted to the workman and the proceedings adjourned to 22.03.2007 at 02.30 p.m, on which date the workman will producetheproofofhisillnessbywayofamedicalcertificate. Thatinproceedingsdated22.03.2007itisrecordedthat theenquiry officer,themanagementrepresentativeandthechargesheetedemployeeare present;thattheworkmanhasreceivedthecopyoftheproceedingsdated 13.03.2007;thatthestatementoftheworkmanhasbeenrecordedinhis defenceasWW1,whohasbeencrossexaminedonbehalfofthemanagement andithasbeenfurtherstatedbytheworkmanthathedoesnotwishtolead evidenceofanywitnessinhisdefenceandhewouldproducehisoriginal medical certificate on the next date of hearing as also the management wouldinformastowhetherthechargesheetedemployeecanbetakenback onduty;thatincasefinalargumentsarenecessary,thesamewouldalsobe heardonthenextdateofhearing,whichisfixedfor29.03.2007at02.30 [CASE NUMBER] Page18of39 P.M. That on 29.03.2007 it is recorded that the Enquiry Officer, managementrepresentativeandthechargesheetedemployeearepresent; that the workman has filed original medical certificate; that there is overwriting on the date 03.06.2006 on the same; that the rest are the photocopies of the original; that the management had been asked as to whethertheworkmancanbetakenondutywhohavesubmittedawritten replyinthisregardwhichistakenonrecordandmarkedasM33;thatitis submittedthatevidenceonbehalfofboththesideshasconcludedandhence, thereportbesubmittedonthepartoftheEnquiryOfficer;thatthereisno otherwitnessinthedefenceevidenceofthechargesheetedemployeeand hence his evidence is closed. Final arguments heard; that it is the submissiononbehalfofthemanagementthatthechargesasleveledagainst thechargesheetedemployeehavebeenprovedbywayofthemanagement exhibitsandthedepositionofitswitnessesinthe managementevidence; that the charge sheeted employee willingly and deliberately without any intimation or takingany leave of absence has remained absent from his duties with the management and is still so; that the medical certificate submittedonhisbehalfinthisregardhasbeenpreparedsubsequentlyafter theinstitutionoftheinstantenquiryonthechargesasleveledagainsthim videthesubjectchargesheet;thatitisthesubmissionofthechargesheeted employee/workmanthatallthechargesasleveledagainsthimarewrong, falseanddenied;thathehadreportedtothemanagementagainandagain withthemedicalcertificateforrejoininghisdutiesbuthewasnotallowed todosobythemanagement;thattheenquiryproceedingsareclosedandthe report would be submitted on the part of the Enquiry Officer to the managementinduecourse. [CASE NUMBER] Page19of39 18. Ex.MW1/2(Colly)beingtheenquiryreportoftheEnquiryOfficer to the said enquiry proceedings, Ex.MW1/1 (Colly), along with the documents including the subject charge sheet dated 06.07.2006 of the management against the workman, as abovesaid, in which the Enquiry Officerhasconcludedthatthechargesasleveledagainstthechargesheeted employee/workman by the management vide its chargesheet dated 06.07.2006inthisregardstandproved. 19. Itisfurtherseenfromtherecordthatthecopyofthesaidenquiry proceedingsEx.MW1/1(Colly)ofeachdateofhearinginthesamehave beensuppliedtothechargesheetedemployee/workmanandhissignaturesin lieuthereofobtainedonthesame. 20. Itisthusseenfromtherecordthatinthesaidenquiryproceedings, Ex.MW1/1(Colly),theworkmanhasbeenexplainedthedueproceduretobe adoptedbytheEnquiryOfficerin conductionoftheenquiryproceedings againstthechargesheetedemployee/workmanonthechargesofmisconduct as alleged against him vide the charge sheet dated 06.07.2006 of the management against him in this regard to which the workman had no objectionasalsothatthesaidenquiryonallitsdateshasbeenconductedin thepresenceoftheworkman,whohasactivelyparticipatedinthesame;that theMWhasbeenledinthemanagementevidenceinthepresenceofthe workmanwhohasdulycrossexaminedhimasalsotheopportunityhasbeen grantedtotheworkmantofiledocumentsinhisdefence,toleadevidence andthatstatementoftheworkman/delinquentemployee inhisdefenceto the charges/allegations of misconduct as leveled against him vide chargesheet dated06.07.2006of themanagementinhisrespecthasbeen recorded in the enquiry proceedings as also that he has been given opportunitytoleadevidenceofanyotherwitnessinhisdefencetowhichhe [CASE NUMBER] Page20of39 hasdeclined. 21. Idonotfindanyperversityintheenquiryreport,Ex.MW1/2 (Colly)inthatthefindingsoftheEnquiryOfficerMW1Sh.[ENTITY],in thesamearesuchthatanyreasonablepersonwouldhavearrivedatthesame on the basis of the evidence, on record, in the enquiry proceedings, Ex.MW1/1(Colly). 22. [ENTITY] DTCVs.[ENTITY],MANU/DE/0907/2010,it hasbeenheld: "14. The Courts have held that the scope of jurisdictionoftheTribunalunderSection33(2)(b)is onlytooverseethedismissaltoensurethatnounfair labourpracticeorvictimizationhasbeenpracticed.If theprocedureoffairhearinghasbeenobserved,and a prima facie case for dismissal is made out, the approval has to be granted. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal/LabourCourtunderSection33(2)cannot bewiderthanthis.Referenceinthisregardmaybe made to [PRECEDENT] [CASE NUMBER]: [PRECEDENT] [CASE NUMBER]: [CASE NUMBER]. 15.TheTribunal/LabourCourtmustnotsitinappeal overthefindingsoftheInquiryOfficer.Wherethe InquiryOfficer,havingconsideredallaspectsofthe [CASE NUMBER] Page21of39 casehasfoundtheemployeeguiltyofmisconduct,the Industrial Tribunal could not re appreciate the evidence and refuse approval. All that can be examined by the Tribunal is that opportunity was given to the worker concerned to establish his innocenceandthereisaprimafaciecasemadeout againsthimonthebasisoftherecordofthedomestic inquiry. The Tribunal is not to see whether on the weightofevidenceadifferentconclusionispossible. TheTribunalisnotempoweredtoreviewthedecision ofthemanagement.Themerecircumstancethatthe Tribunal was inclined to arrive at a different conclusion of fact on its appreciation of the same evidencewill not entitleittowithholdtheapproval sought for by the management for dismissal of the workersolongasthemanagement'sfindingscould notbeshowntobeperverseorbasedonnoevidence. TheTribunalistolookonlytoensurethatthereisno lackofbonafidesandvictimizationonthepartofthe management. The Tribunal can overturn the findingshandedoverbytheInquiryOfficeronlyif theyareperverse.Afindingcanbesaidtobeperverse incaseitisnotsupportedbyanylegalevidence.Ifa findingarrivedatbytheInquiryOfficerissuchthat no reasonable person could have arrived at that [CASE NUMBER] Page22of39 finding on the material before him then also the findingcanbesaidtobeperverse.Ifthefindingisnot aperverseone,inthesaidsense,andifthereisprima facie evidence to support the finding, the Tribunal cannotrefusetograntapprovaltotheorderpassedby themanagement.Itisonlyonfindingtheprinciples ofnaturaljusticetohavebeenviolatedorbiasbythe InquiryOfficeragainsttheemployeethattheinquiry reportistobedisregarded." 23. InviewoftheaboveenquiryproceedingsEx.MW1/1(Colly) andenquiryreportEx.MW1/2(Colly),Ifindnomeritintheallegationsof theworkmanasdeposedbyhimbywayofhisaffidavitbywayofevidence Ex.WW1/Ain rebuttal workman evidence ontheenquiryissue that the same has been conducted against him by the management against the principlesofnatural justiceorthathewasnotgivenanyopportunityto defendhimselfintheenquiry;thatthemanagementdidnotfollowtherules of the hospital while conducting the domestic enquiry; that the Enquiry Officerdidnotrecordtheenquiryproceedingsinatruthfullmanner;thathe didnotrecordhissubmissionsintheenquiry;thathedidnotrecordhis submissionregardingrulesoftheenquiry;thathedidnotevenrecordinthe enquirythatpartoftherulesweresuppliedtohim;thathedidnotsupply himthedocumentsoftheproceedingsMW13filedintheenquiry;thatinthe absenceofanydefenceassistantintheproceedingsoftheenquiryhecould not cross examine any of the management witnesses; that the cross examinationwasdonebytheenquiryofficerhimselfandherecordedthat thecrossexaminationwasdonebyhim;thatthefindingsoftheEnquiry [CASE NUMBER] Page23of39 Officerwere perverse andnotbasedonthematerialonrecord; thatno reasonablepersoncouldhavereachedattheconclusionreachedbyEnquiry Officerinthedomesticenquiryandthefindingswereperverseandnotbased onthematerialonrecord. 24. That it is further seen from the enquiry proceedings Ex.MW1/1 (Colly)thatthedemandoftheworkman/delinquentemployeetohavethe servicesofoneSh.[ENTITY]allegedGeneralSecretaryoftheMool ChandKharaitiRamHospitalKaramchariUnion,theallegedunionofthe workmanhasbeendisallowedontheobjectionofthemanagementofhis being a dismissed employee of the management and thus not entitled to representtheworkmanashisdefenceassistantintheenquiryproceedings Ex.MW1/1(Colly)withtheEnquiryOfficerpermittingtheworkmantotake theassistanceofanycoworkman/employeewhowasintheserviceofthe managementatthattimeinrespectofwhichitisadmittedonthepartofthe workmaninhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofthemanagementinrebuttal workman evidence on enquiry issue that it was correct that he was not interestedtomakeanyotherpersonexceptSh.[ENTITY] assistantintheenquiry. 25. Ifindfromtherecordthatnomaterialhasbeenplacedonthepart of the workman/charge sheeted employee in support of his demand for provision of the services of one Sh. [ENTITY], alleged General SecretaryoftheUnionoftheworkmanashisdefenceassistantduringthe enquiry proceedings either before the Enquiry Officer or in his rebuttal workmanevidenceontheenquiryissuethathewasmandatorilyentitledto theservicesofthedemandedpersonviz.Sh.[ENTITY]allegedGeneral SecretaryoftheUnionoftheworkman,inthefaceofdenialonthepartof themanagementthatheisadismissedemployeeofthemanagement,whois [CASE NUMBER] Page24of39 no longer in the employment of the management and accordingly his servicesasadefenceassistantcannotbeprovidedtotheworkman/charge sheetedemployeeduringtheenquiryproceedingsonwhichsubmissionof themanagement,thesaidobjectionoftheworkmanhasbeendisposedofby theEnquiryOfficerwiththeobservationthattheworkman/chargesheeted employeecanonlytaketheservicesofacoworkmanashisdefenceassistant intheenquiryproceedingswhoisintheemploymentofthemanagement. 26. Itisfurtherseenfromtherecordthatwithrespecttotheobjection oftheworkmanthattheenquiryconductedisbadinlawbyvirtueofhaving beenconductedbyanoutsider,itisseenfromtherecordthatnomaterialin support of thesamehasbeenprovedonthepartoftheworkmaninhis rebuttalworkmanevidenceontheenquiryissue,onrecord. 27. It is seen from the record that Ex.WW1/1 relied upon by the workmanisallegedpartofrulesofthemanagement,whichnowhereprovide forprovidingoftheservicesofadismissedemployeeofthemanagementas adefenceassistanttoachargesheetedemployeeinadomesticenquiryofthe managementorprohibittheconductionofadomesticenquiryonthecharges ofallegedmisconductofthemanagementagainstthedelinquentemployee videitssubjectchargesheetagainsthiminthisregard,byanoutsider. 28. In the absence of any service rules/standing orders of the managementinthisregardtherelianceonthepartoftheworkmanonthe provisionsoftheIndustrialEmployment(StandingOrders)Act,1946 and therulesframedthereunder,inthisregard,ismisplacedsincevidecitation [ENTITY]AppellantVs.[ENTITY] Ors.Respondents,130(2006)DelhiLawTimes292(DB) relieduponby themanagementithasbeenheld: [CASE NUMBER] Page25of39 "7. The short question in this case is whether the StandingOrdersActappliestoaHospitalornot. 8.Section1(3)oftheStandingOrdersActstatesthat it applies to every industrial establishment wherein 100ormoreworkmenareemployedorwereemployed onanydayofthepreceding12months,andtosuch classorclassesofotherindustrialestablishmentsas theappropriateGovernmentmayfromtimetotime, bynotificationintheOfficialGazette. 9.Hence,theestablishmentcanbecoveredbythe StandingOrdersActifitisanindustrial establishment. 10.Section2(e)oftheStandingOrdersActdefines IndustrialEstablishmentandithasalreadybeen quotedabove. 11.Clause(i)ofSection2(e)statesthatanindustrial establishmentwillincludeanindustrialestablishment asdefinedinSection2(ii)ofthePaymentofWages Act.WehavecarefullyperusedSection2(ii)ofthe PaymentofWagesActandwefindthataHospitalis notmentionedtherein. [ENTITY], we do not agree with this submission.ThatClauserefersto"workshoporother establishmentinwhicharticlesareproduced,adapted ormanufactured,withaviewtotheiruse,transportor sale. 13. In our opinion, a Hospital is certainly not a workshop or establishment in which articles are produced,adaptedormanufactured.Ahospitalisa [CASE NUMBER] Page26of39 placewheremedicaltreatmentisgiventothosewho aresufferingfromsomediseaseorailment.Thatis themainfunctionofahospital.Ifincidentallysome articles are produced in a Hospital that would not mean that its main function is that incidental function. In our opinion, such incidental activity wouldnotbringaHospitalwithinthescopeofSection 2(ii)(f)ofthePaymentofWagesAct.Wehavetosee the main activity of the establishment and not the incidentalactivity. 14. The next question which arises is whether a Hospital is a factory under [SECTION] of the [ACT] [SECTION] "factory" means any premises including the precinctsthereof (i)whereontenormoreworkersareworking,orwere workingonanydayoftheprecedingtwelvemonths, andinanypartofwhichamanufacturingprocessis beingcarriedonwiththeaidofpower,orisordinarily socarriedon,or (ii)whereontwentyormoreworkersareworking,or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months,andinanypartofwhichamanufacturing processisbeingcarriedonwithouttheaidofpower, orisordinarilysocarriedon. 16.Theexpressionmanufacturingprocesshasbeen definedinSection2(k)oftheFactoriesActwhich states: 2(k)"manufacturingprocess"meansanyprocessfor (i) making altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing, or otherwise treating or adaptinganyarticlesorsubstancewithaviewtoits [CASE NUMBER] Page27of39 use,sale,transport,deliveryordisposal,or (ii)pumpingoil,water,sewageoranyother substance,or (iii)generating,transformingortransmittingpower, or (iv)composingtypesforprinting,printingbyletter press,lithography,photogravureorothersimilar processorbookbinding; (v)constructing,reconstructing,repairing,refitting, finishingorbreakingupshipsorvessels. 17.Mr.PrashantBhushan,learnedCounselforthe workmenintheHospitalstronglycontendedthatthe Indraprastha Apollo Hospital does the work of washing, cleaning, repairing etc. and hence it is covered by the definition of the expression "manufacturingprocess". 18.InthisconnectionMr.PrashantBhushaninvited ourattentiontothecounteraffidavitfiledonbehalfof respondentNos.1and2.Inpara4ofthesameitis stated that the petitioner Hospital was engaged in variouskindsofactivitiesincludingcooking,washing etc.Itwasfurthercontendedthatvariousfooditems were prepared and manufactured with the aid of powerintheBakeryandCafetariaofthehospitalfor sale to patients as well as their attendants. The petitioner Hospital also has a Dental Department wheremanufacturingofdenturesetc.takesplacefor replacementoftheteethofthepatients.Italsohasan Engineering Department where various kinds of preparatoryaswellasmanufacturingactivitiestake place. 19. It is true that the expression 'manufacturing process' gives a much wider meaning to the word 'manufacture' than what is understood in common [CASE NUMBER] Page28of39 parlance. The Legislature is free to make such deemingprovisionswhichamountstoalegalfiction, andlegalfictionsarewellknowninlaw. 20.However,inouropinion,anestablishmentwould beafactoryifthemainworkoftheestablishmentis the work of making, altering, repairing, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up or generating, transforming power or composing types forprinting,orpreservingorstoringanyarticleina coldstorage.Suchactivitywillcomewithintheambit ofSection2(k)provideditisthemainactivityofthe establishment.Forinstance,ifthereisalaundryshop which is doing the main work of washing and cleaningclothes,itwillamounttoamanufacturing process because the definition of "manufacturing process" is wide enough to include washing and cleaning.Similarly,ifthereispowerstationdoingthe main work of generating power, or if there is cold storagedoingthemainworkofstorageoffoodand other articles, it will amount to a manufacturing process.However,wheresuchactivitiesofcleaning, washing,generatingofpower,preservingarticlesin coldstorageetc.,areonlyincidentalactivities,then thatwillnotmaketheestablishmentafactory. 21.ThemainactivityofaHospitalistocurediseases and ailments and not to do washing, cleaning, generating, cold storage etc. These latter are only incidental activities. In other words, to determine whetheran establishmentisafactory ornotunder [ACT]wehavetoseewhat isthemainactivitywhichisbeingconductedinthe establishment. If the main activity is of repairing, washing,cleaning,powergeneratingetc.thenitwill certainly be a factory, but not if that is only an incidentalwork. [CASE NUMBER] Page29of39 22.Inouropinion,bynostretchofimaginationcanit besaidthatthemainworkofaHospitaliscleaning, washing, packing, oiling, generating power etc. No doubtcleaningofthefloor,washingofthelinenetc. hastobedoneinaHospitalsoastoensurethatthe hospitalremainsfreefrominfection.However,thatis notthemainfunctionofaHospital.Theyareonly incidentalactivitiestoensurepropercleanlinessetc. inahospital. 23. If we accept the submission of Mr. [ENTITY] then every establishment will have to be heldtobeafactory,becauseineveryestablishment therehastobewashingandcleaning.Surelythatwas nottheintentionofthelegislature. 24.LearnedsingleJudgehasreliedonthedecisionof theSupremeCourtinBangaloreWaterSupplyand SewerageBoardv.A.RajappaandOrs.inwhichit has been held that a Hospital is an industry. That decisionwasgivenwhileinterpretingSection2(k)of [ACT]Inthepresentcaseweare notconcernedwiththeIndustrialDisputesAct,but withtheStandingOrdersActwherethedefinitionof 'industrial establishment' is very different from the definitionof'industry'in[ACT] Hence, in our opinion, the decision in [PRECEDENT] Ors.etc.(supra)hasnoapplication. 25. The learned single judge in the impugned judgment has observed: "By adopting a proactive approach andnotimpartinganinsularmeaningto 'industrial establishment', hospital would also be construedasan'industrialestablishments'." [CASE NUMBER] Page30of39 26.Withrespect,wecannotagree.Asalreadystated above,thedefinitionof'industrialestablishment'in theStandingOrdersActisverydifferentfromthatof 'industry'in[ACT]Hence,the decisionoftheSupremeCourtinterpretingtheword 'industry' in the [ACT] has no application to the interpretation of the words 'industrialestablishment'intheStandingOrdersAct. 27. For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowedandtheimpugnedjudgmentof thelearned single Judge as well as the impugned order of the Certifying Officer dated October 7, 1999 are quashed." 29. [ENTITY]relieduponbythemanagementviz.BharatPetroleum CorporationLtd.Vs.MaharashtraGeneralKamgarUnionandOrs.,1999 (81)FLR358(SC),ithasbeenheld: "Beforecomingtothecorequestion,wemay first consider the right of an employee to be representedinthedisciplinaryproceedingsand theextentoftheright. Thebasicprincipleisthatanemployeehas norighttorepresentationinthedepartmental proceedings by another person or a lawyer unlesstheServiceRulesspecificallyprovidefor the same. The right to representation is availableonlytotheextentspecificallyprovided forintheRules.Forexample,Rule1712ofthe RailwayEstablishmentCodeprovidesasunder: "Theaccusedrailwayservantmaypresenthis case with the assistance of any other railway servant employed on the same railway (including a railway servant on leave [CASE NUMBER] Page31of39 preparatory to retirement) on which he is working." The right to representation, therefore, has been made available in a restricted way to a delinquent employee. He has a choice to be represented by another railway employee, but thechoiceisrestrictedtotheRailwayonwhich he himself is working, that is, if he is an employee of the western Railway, his choice wouldberestrictedtotheemployeesworkingon the Western Railway. The choice cannot be allowedtotraveltootherRailways. Similarly,aprovisionhasbeenmadeinRule 14(8) of the [ACT] where too, an employee has been given the choiceofbeingrepresentedinthedisciplinary proceedingsthroughacoemployee. [PRECEDENT], a ThreeJudge Bench observedasunder: "Accustomedaswearetothepracticeinthe courtsoflawtoskilfulhandlingofwitnessesby lawyers specially trained in the art of examination and crossexamination of witnesses,ourfirstinclinationistothinkthata fairenquirydemandsthatthepersonaccusedof an act should have the assistance of some person, who even if not a lawyer may be expected to examine and crossexamine witnesseswithafairamountofskill.Wehaveto rememberhoweverinthefirstplacethatthese are not enquiries in a court of law. It is necessarytorememberalsothatinthese [CASE NUMBER] Page32of39 enquiries,fairlysimplequestionsoffactasto whether certain acts of misconduct were committedbyaworkmanornotonlyfalltobe considered, and straightforward questioning which a person of fair intelligence and knowledge of conditions prevailing in the industrywillbeabletodowillordinarilyhelpto elicit the truth. It may often happen that the accusedworkmanwillbebestsuited,andfully able to crossexaminethewitnesses whohave spokenagainsthimandtoexaminewitnessesin hisfavour. Itishelpfultoconsiderinthisconnectionthe factthatordinarilyinenquiriesbeforedomestic tribunalsthepersonaccusedofanymisconduct conductshisowncase.Ruleshavebeenframed byGovernmentasregardstheproceduretobe followed in enquiries against their own employees.Noprovisionismadeintheserules thatthepersonagainstwhomanenquiryisheld mayberepresentedbyanybodyelse.Whenthe generalpracticesadoptedbydomestictribunals is that the person accused conducts his own case,weareunabletoacceptanargumentthat natural justice demands that in the case of enquiries into a chargesheet of misconduct againstaworkmanheshouldberepresentedby amemberofhisUnion.Besidesitisnecessary torememberthatifanyenquiryisnototherwise fair,theworkmanconcernedcanchallengeits validityinanindustrialdispute. Ourconclusionthereforeisthataworkman againstwhomanenquiryisbeingheldbythe managementhasnorighttoberepresentedat suchenquirybyarepresentativeofhisUnion: thoughofcourseanemployerinhisdiscretion canandmayallowhisemployeetoavailhimself [CASE NUMBER] Page33of39 ofsuchassistance."(Emphasissupplied) Inanotherdecision,[PRECEDENT] in the disciplinary proceedings by another person unless the Service Rules specifically providedforthesame. Thematteragaincametobeconsideredbya ThreeJudge Bench of this Court in [PRECEDENT]
(ashethenwas)inthecontextofSection22(ii) of the [ACT] as also in the context of domestic enquiry, upheld the statutory restrictions imposed on delinquents choice of representation in the domesticenquirythroughanagent.Itwaslaid downasunder: "11. A delinquent appearing before a Tribunal may feel that the right to representation is implied in the larger entitlementofafairhearingbasedontherule ofnaturaljustice.Hemay,therefore,feelthat refusal to be represented by an agent of his choice would tantamount to denial of natural justice.Ordinarilyitisconsidereddesirablenot torestrictthisrightofrepresentationbycounsel oranagentofone'schoicebutitisadifferent thingtosaythatsucharightisanelementof the principles of natural justice and denial thereof would invalidate the enquiry. Representation through counsel can be restrictedbylawasforexample,Section36of theIndustrialDisputesAct,1947,andsoalsoby certified Standing Orders permitted an employee to be represented by a clerk or workman working in the same department as the delinquent. So also the right to representationcanberegulatedorrestrictedby statute.
TheearlierdecisionsinKalindi&Othersvs. Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co, Ltd. (supra); [PRECEDENT] (supra) and [PRECEDENT] in this country does not concede an absolute rightofrepresentationtoanemployeeaspartof hisrighttobeheard.Itwasfurtherspecified thatthereisnorighttorepresentationassuch unless the company, by its Standing Orders, recognizessucharight.Inthiscase,itwasalso laid down that a delinquent employee has no right to be represented in the departmental proceedings by a lawyer unless the facts involvedinthedisciplinaryproceedingswereof acomplexnatureinwhichcasetheassistance ofalawyercouldbepermitted."
Wehaveseriouslyperusedthejudgmentof theHighCourtwhich,curiously,hastreatedthe decision of this Court in Crescent Dyes and chemicalsLtd.'scase(supra)asadecisionin favouroftherespondentNo.1.Theprocessof reasoningbywhichthisdecisionhasbeenheld tobeinfavourofrespondentNo.1forcomingto the conclusion that he had a right to be representedbyapersonwho,thoughanoffice beareroftheTradeUnion,wasnotanemployee oftheappellantisabsolutelyincorrectandwe are not prepared to subscribe to this view. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the judgmentpassedbytheHighCourtinsofaras itpurportstoquashtheorderoftheAppellate Authority,bywhichtheDraftStandingOrders werecertified,cannotbesustained." The contention of the learned counsel for RespondentNo.1thattheStandingOrdersas made by the appellant must conform to the ModelStandingOrderscannotbeaccepted.Itis true that originally the jurisdiction of the CertifyingOfficerasalsothatoftheAppellate Authority was very limited and the only jurisdictionavailabletothemundertheActwas toseewhethertheStandingOrdersmadebythe Establishment and submitted for their certificationconformedtotheModelStanding Orders.Thisrequiredtheprocessofcomparison of the Draft Standing Order with the Model Standing Orders and on comparison if it was foundthattheDraftStandingOrders,thesame would be certified even if they were not reasonableorfair.Theworkmenpracticallyhas no say in the matter and they would not be listened even if they agitated that the Draft StandingOrderswerenotfairorreasonable. In1956,radicalchangeswereintroducedin theActbytheParliamentasaresultofwhich notonlythescopeoftheActwaswidened,but jurisdiction was also conferred upon the Certifying Officer as also the Appellate Authority to adjudicate upon and decide the questionrelatingtofairnessorreasonableness ofanyprovisionoftheStandingOrders. Intheinstantcase,theStandingOrdersas finallycertifiedcannotbesaideithertobenot inconsonancewiththeModelStandingOrders orunreasonableorunfair.
ModelStandingOrders,nodoubt,provided thatadelinquentemployeecouldberepresented inthedisciplinaryproceedingsthroughanother employeewhomaynotbetheemployeeofthe parent establishment to which the delinquent belongs and may be an employee elsewhere, though he may be a member of the Trade Union,butthisruleofrepresentationhasnot beendisturbedbytheCertifiedStandingOrders, inasmuchasitstillprovidesthatthedelinquent employeecanberepresentedinthedisciplinary proceedings through an employee. The only embargoisthattherepresentativeshouldbean employee of the parent establishment. The choice of the delinquent in selecting his representativeisaffectedonlytotheextentthat therepresentativehastobeacoemployeeof thesameestablishmentinwhichthedelinquent is employed. There appears to be some logic behind this as a coemployee would be fully awareoftheconditionsprevailingintheparent establishment,itsServiceRules,includingthe Standing Orders, and would be in a better position, than an outsider, to assist the delinquent in the domestic proceedings for a fairandearlydisposal.Thebasicfeatures of the Model Standing Orders are thus retained and the right of representation in the disciplinary proceedings through another employeeisnotaltered,affectedortakenaway. TheStandingOrdersconformtoallstandards ofreasonablenessandfairnessand,therefore, the Appellate Authority was fully justified in certifying the Draft Standing Orders as submittedbytheAppellant.
Theappealsareconsequentlyallowed.The impugnedjudgmentdated28.6.1996,passedby theBombayHighCourt,insofarasitrelates totheClausesinquestionwhichisthesubject matter of these appeals, is set aside and the order passed by the Appellate Authority certifyingtheDraftStandingOrdersisupheld. Therewillbenoorderastocosts."
30. Vide citation [PRECEDENT]: "10.Itisfairlywellsettlednowthatinviewofthe wide power of the Labour Court it can, in an appropriate case, consider the evidence which has beenconsideredbythedomestictribunalandina given case on such consideration arrive at a conclusiondifferencefromtheonearrivedatbythe domestictribunal.Theassessmentofevidenceina domestic enquiry is not required to be made by applyingthesameyardsticasacivilcourtcoulddo whenalisisbroughtbeforeit.[ACT] totheproceedinginadomesticenquirysofarasthe domesticenquiriesareconcerned,thoughprinciples offairnessaretoapply.Itisalsofairlywellsettled that in a domestic enquiry guilt may not be establishedbeyondreasonabledoubtandtheproofof misconduct would be sufficient. In a domestic enquiryallmaterialswhicharelogically probative including hearsay evidence can be acted upon providedithasareasonablenexusandcredibility."
31. Inviewoftheabovefindingsanddiscussion,Ifindnomeritinthe allegation/submissionoftheworkmanbywayofhisaffidavitbywayof evidenceEx.WW1/Ainrebuttalworkmanevidenceonenquiryissuethatthe enquiryconductedbythemanagementintotheallegationsofmisconductas leveledbyitagainsthimvideitschargesheetdated06.07.2006againsthim inthisregardhavebeenvitiatedinanymannerwhatsoeverbyvirtueofhis havingbeendeniedtheservicesofoneSh.[ENTITY]allegedGeneral SecretaryoftheMoolChandKharaitiRamHospitalKaramchariUnion,as hisdefenceassistantintheenquiryproceedingsorbyvirtueofthesame havingbeenconductedbyanyoutsiderasalleged.
32. Iaccordinglydonotfindthattheenquiryasconductedbythe management against the workman into the allegations of misconduct as leveled on its part against the workman vide its charge sheet dated 06.07.2006againsttheworkmaninthisregardsuffersfromanyprocedural irregularity or vice of noncompliance of rules of natural justice qua the workman,asalleged.Theinstantissuei.e.thefairnessandproprietyofthe enquiryconductedonthepartofthemanagementagainsttheworkman,as abovesaid,isaccordinglydecidedinfavourofthemanagementandagainst theworkman. Digitally signed by [ENTITY] [ENTITY] Date: 2018.03.27 16:07:06 +0530 on27.03.2018 ([ENTITY]) PresidingOfficer,IndustrialTribunal DwarkaCourts,NewDelhi.