* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 10010/2009 % Date of Decision: 13 July, 2009 # M/S MEDTECH DEVICES LTD. ..... PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. Virender Goswami, Advocate. VERSUS $ RAJU MASSEY & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS ^ Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha for respondent No. 2/ GNCTD. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) CM No. 8342/2009 (Exemption) in WP(C) No.10010/2009 Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. WP(C) No.10010/2009 & CM No. 8341/2009 (for stay) This writ petition filed by the management (the petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated 03.02.2009 passed by Ms. Renu Bhatnagar, POLC No. X, Delhi directing reinstatement of the workman (the respondent herein) with 50% back wages. 2 Heard on admission. 3 The respondent was appointed as a Sub-staff with the petitioner management w.e.f. 03.04.1997 and he was not allowed to resume duties by the petitioner management w.e.f. 13.05.2001. He, therefore, raised an industrial dispute regarding his alleged termination which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court after considering the evidence produced by the parties W.P.(C) No.10010/2009 Page 1 of 3 before it reached to a conclusion that the termination of the respondent from the service of the petitioner management was unjustified and therefore directed his reinstatement with benefit of 50% back wages. 4 Mr. Virender Goswami learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner management has relied upon three documents which are at pages 50-52 of the paper book to contend that the workman in this case was deployed by the management for delivering a life saving device (pace maker) to one of its customers at Jalandhar where the customer of the petitioner at Jalandhar sent a report against the workman stating that he was found lying in drunken condition on the next day of his visit. Mr. Goswami has contended that the workman had failed to explain his conduct at Jalandhar despite opportunities given to it vide petitioner's letters dated 29.05.2001 & 30.05.2001 (pages 51-A and 52-A of the paper book) and therefore according to him, the management was justified in terminating the services of the workman vide termination letter dated 30.05.2001 at page 50 of the paper book. 5 Admittedly no inquiry was held by the petitioner management against the workman for his alleged misconduct which was at the back of the management's mind in terminating the services of the workman. The court below has taken the termination of the workman as a case of discharge simplicitor and not a penal discharge. 6 From the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, the question that arises for consideration is whether the discharge of the workman was a discharge simplicitor or a penal discharge. I do not find any ground to take a view different then what has been taken by the court below to hold that the termination of the workman from the service of the petitioner management was a discharge simplicitor. Whether it is a case of discharge simplicitor or a case of penal discharge, the termination of W.P.(C) No.10010/2009 Page 2 of 3 the workman cannot be justified in law. This point is crystallized by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MCD Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain 1998 SCC (L&S) 1222 wherein it was held that in case of discharge simplicitor, the management cannot dispense with the services of a workman without complying with the requirement of Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in case of penal discharge, the services of a workman cannot be dispensed with without holding a domestic inquiry into the charges of alleged misconduct. 7 In the present case, the petitioner management has not complied with the provision of Section 25 (F) of the the Industrial Disputes Act while dispensing with the services of the workman vide termination letter dated 30.05.2001 (page 50 of the paper book) in as much as the workman was not paid one month salary in lieu of notice period along with termination letter. Since no inquiry into the alleged misconduct was held by the management against the workman and therefore termination order, even otherwise, cannot be maintained in law. 8 In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error much less a material error in the impugned award of the court below which may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution. 9 In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. Stay application is also dismissed. JULY 13, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'a' W.P.(C) No.10010/2009 Page 3 of 3