LPA 619/2010 Page 1 of 3 #54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 619/2010 SHRI BRIJ PAL SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Advocate versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocates % Date of Decision : 27th August, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 1st July, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the appellant’s writ petition being WP(C) 4772/1996 has been dismissed. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant had filed the writ petition impugning the Labour Court’s award dated 22nd July, 1996 wherein it was held that the termination of service of appellant-workman by respondent No.2-DTC was legal and valid. 2. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, learned counsel for the appellant LPA 619/2010 Page 2 of 3 submitted that both the learned Single Judge as well as the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the inquiry proceedings were violative of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the requisite documents were never supplied to the appellant. Mr. Arya further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that as the evidence of the appellant remained unchallenged, the respondent No.2-DTC had failed to prove its case in totality. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as well as having perused the documents on record, we are in agreement with the view of learned Single Judge that merely because the respondent No.2-DTC had been proceeded ex-parte, it did not automatically entitle the appellant to relief. It is significant to mention that in the present case the appellant- workman had even failed to file a reply to the charge-sheet that had been issued to him. 4. We are also of the opinion that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice in the present case inasmuch as all the documents asked for by the appellant-workman from the Inquiry Officer were supplied to him. Learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that the appellant-workman cannot rely upon Exhibit WWW1/3 to 20 as the said letters were not addressed to the Inquiry Officer but to Depot Manager and no grievance with regard to the aforesaid documents was ever raised with the Inquiry Officer. Moreover, we find that the learned Single Judge has painstakingly and laboriously dealt with all the contentions and submissions advanced by LPA 619/2010 Page 3 of 3 the appellant-petitioner. 5. Consequently, the appeal, being bereft of merit, is dismissed but with no order as to costs. MANMOHAN, J CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUST 27, 2010 js