* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 19541/2005 % Date of Decision: 22 July, 2009 #M/s Britannia Industries Ltd. ..... PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. Raj Birbal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate. VERSUS $ Uday Vir Singh .....RESPONDENT ^ Through: Ms. Zeba Khair, Advocate. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) This writ petition filed by M/s Britannia Industries Ltd. (the petitioner herein) is directed against an order dated 28.01.2005 passed by Mr. M.K.Gupta, POLC XII, Delhi by which the inquiry issue has been decided against the petitioner holding that the principles of natural justice were not followed and for that reason, the inquiry is vitiated. 2 The court below taking note of a Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors (1993) 4 SCC 727 reached to a conclusion that the inquiry against the delinquent workman in the present case is vitiated for non-supply of copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent workman. The relevant portion of the abovementioned judgment of the Supreme Court is quoted in para 37 at internal page 12 of the impugned order. 3 Ms. Raavi Birbal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the W.P.(C) No.19541/2005 Page 1 of 3 petitioner admits that copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the respondent before decision for his dismissal was taken by the disciplinary authority. The court below has noted in the impugned order that the respondent is a poor and an illiterate person. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In my opinion a prejudice has been caused to the workman (the respondent herein) because of non-supply of copy of the inquiry report to him and he therefore is entitled to have a copy of the inquiry report and gave his reply to the concerned disciplinary authority so that the same may be considered before any decision for imposition of penalty is taken against him. 4 It shall be significant to mention that the court below has rejected three of the objections relating to validity of the inquiry taken by the workman. The Labour Court has given cogent reasons in para 32 of the impugned order for reaching to a conclusion that due opportunity of hearing was extended by the management to the workman during the course of inquiry against him. There is no challenge to these findings on behalf of the workman. 5 The only issue that is now left is non-supply of copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent workman (the respondent herein). Ms. Raavi Birbal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner says that the copy of the inquiry report will now be supplied to the workman and a show cause notice of proposed penalty will be given to him by the management within four weeks from today. Ms. Raavi Birbal further submits that the respondent will be given an opportunity to file his reply to the inquiry report and to the show cause notice. She says that reply, if any, received from the workman will be duly considered by the disciplinary authority before taking a fresh decision regarding penalty to W.P.(C) No.19541/2005 Page 2 of 3 be imposed against him for misconduct for which he was tried in the domestic inquiry. This submission made on behalf of the petitioner appears to be reasonable and there is no difficulty in accepting the same in view of admitted legal position that the respondent has to be given an opportunity to put up his stand against the inquiry and the show cause notice to be served upon him for the penalty proposed by the management. The consequence of this exercise will be that the proceedings pursuant to reference pending before the court below will not survive for any further scrutiny and is to be treated as non-est. In case the disciplinary authority after taking into account the reply of the respondent again decides to dismiss the respondent from the service of the petitioner then the respondent will be at liberty to raise a fresh industrial dispute with regard to his dismissal as per law. 6 For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is partly allowed to the extent that the impugned order is modified to the effect that the petitioner management instead of going to the second stage of proving the misconduct against the workman before the Labour Court will give a fresh show cause notice along with copy of the inquiry report to the respondent within four weeks from today and pass a fresh order after considering his reply as per law. The proceedings pending before the Labour Court arising out of reference dated 13.10.1993 stand terminated as it does not survives for any answer. 7 This writ petition stands disposed of in terms referred above. 8 A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below for information. JULY 22, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'a' W.P.(C) No.19541/2005 Page 3 of 3