* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C.) No. 8906/2009 % Date of Decision: 28th July, 2009 # Shri Mehar Singh ..... Petitioner ! Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. VERSUS $ Cement Manufacturers Association .....Respondent ^ Through: Mr. Raj Birbal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Raavi Birbal, 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 the workman (petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated 29.02.2008 passed by Ms. Renu Bhatnagar, Presiding Officer, Labour Court-X, Delhi by which his termination from the service of the management (respondent herein) has been found to be legal and justified. 2. Heard. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a driver with the respondent on 01.09.1982 and his last drawn wages were Rs.4600/- per month. He was charge sheeted by the respondent management vide charge sheet dated 05.03.1997 with the charge that on 16.02.1997, he was driving the company's car under influence of liquor and had hit a Maruti car bearing No. DL-2CE-9051 driven by a lady. Domestic inquiry was held against the petitioner in which he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him vide W.P.(C) No. 8906/2009 Page 1 of 3 charge sheet dated 05.03.1997 referred above. The management of the respondent on the basis of the inquiry report and also taking into account the past conduct of the petitioner terminated him from its service w.e.f. 17.11.1997. 4. The petitioner aggrieved by his termination raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner raised three objections in relation to legality and validity of the domestic inquiry held against him and these objections were as follows :- i) He was not allowed to be represented by a lawyer or a representative of his choice; ii) Inquiry Officer was biased; and iii) Inquiry report is perverse 5. I have gone through the impugned award carefully. All these three objections have been examined by the Industrial Adjudicator in the light of the evidenced produced by the parties before it. The Labour Court vide its order dated 21.08.2007 on the basis of evidence produced by the parties before it decided the inquiry issue in favour of the management and against the workman. It was held for cogent reasons that sufficient opportunity was given to the workman to defend the charges attributed to him vide charge sheet dated 05.03.1997. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning given by the Court below in the order dated 21.08.2007 on the inquiry issue. It may be noted that three independent witnesses examined on behalf of the management in the course of domestic inquiry have consistently deposed against the petitioner that he was driving company's car on 16.02.1997 under the influence of liquor and had hit another Maruti car No. DL-2CE-9051 driven by a lady. The petitioner has not given any explanation much less a cogent explanation W.P.(C) No. 8906/2009 Page 2 of 3 why those three independent witnesses examined by the management have deposed against him. 6. The Court below has also taken note of the fact that two out of the three witnesses examined by the management have been cross- examined by the authorised representative of the workman and the third witness was not cross-examined despite opportunity given to the workman. Does it not show that adequate opportunity to defend the charges was given by the Inquiry Officer to the petitioner? 7. The petitioner has made allegation of bias against the Inquiry Officer. However, no evidence of bias was produced by the petitioner before the Court below. It is easier to make an allegation of bias than to prove it. There is no material on record to infer bias against the Inquiry Officer. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in domestic inquiry and this was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Another Versus Rattan Singh, 1977 LAB IC-845. 8. I also do not find any merit in the argument of Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned termination of the petitioner is bad as the management did not produce expert evidence to prove that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol on the date of the incident when the company's car hit another Maruti car. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned award that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. JULY 28, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'ma' W.P.(C) No. 8906/2009 Page 3 of 3