Delhi High Court
07.02.2023
After 25 years of termination of service, Delhi High Court held that Shri. Bhola Thakur, a daily wage Beldar, was illegally terminated by MCD – MCD had terminated the service of Shri. Bhola Thakur on the ground that the signatures of Commissioner, MCD on the job application of Shri. Bhola Thakur were forged and, thus, it was a case of fraud appointment – Court held that the services of even a daily wage Beldar cannot be terminated without conducting a proper enquiry – Delhi High Court, accordingly, directed MCD to pay compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh to Shri. Bhola Thakur
On
08.08.1996, Shri. Bhola Thakur was appointed as a daily wage/muster roll Beldar
in MCD. On 15.05.1997, the services of Shri. Bhola Thakur were terminated. It
was alleged that the signatures of the Commissioner, MCD, on the joining letter
of Shri. Bhola Thakur, were forged. However, before terminating the services of
Shri. Bhola Thakur, MCD did not conduct any domestic enquiry.
Being
aggrieved by his termination of service, Shri. Bhola Thakur raised an
industrial dispute by filing a statement of claim before the Industrial
Tribunal, Delhi.
Vide
Award dated 07.03.2003, the Industrial Tribunal held that Shri. Bhola Thakur
was rightly removed from service inasmuch as the Commissioner, MCD has himself
removed Shri. Bhola Thakur and, therefore, there was no requirement of
conducting any enquiry.
Being
aggrieved by the Award dated 07.03.2003, Shri. Bhola Thakur filed a writ petition
[W.P. (C) No. 15787/2004] before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
Vide
Judgment dated 07.02.2023, Delhi High Court held that the termination of
service of Shri. Bhola Thakur was illegal and declared that the MCD ought to
have conducted proper enquiry before terminating the services of Shri. Bhola
Thakur. High Court directed the MCD to pay compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh to Shri.
Bhola Thakur. The directive paragraphs of the Judgment dated 07.02.2023 are as
under: -
“21.
The perusal of these letters shows that the Petitioner was removed from his
muster roll employment subject to the outcome of the vigilance enquiry.
However, the Respondent failed to disclose the outcome of the said vigilance
enquiry. MW-1 in his cross examination stated that 'I can not say if any
vigilance enquiry had taken place in respect of forgery of signature of Mark B
on Ex.WW1/9'. MW-3 in his cross examination stated that 'The signature of the
Commissioner of MCD on the letter of approval of the employment of Bhola Thakur
were found forged and a vigilance enquiry was held in this respect. The letter
to that effect is MW3/1 and MW3/2 which are dated 07.05.1997 and 14.05.1997
respectively. The enquiry is still continuing in the vigilance Department.'
MW-3 further states that 'I have no knowledge against whom the vigilance action
is continuing but it is against the workman for his signature of the
Commissioner which were obtained by the Commissioner'.
22.
Hence from the evidence by the Respondent Management it is evident that the
vigilance enquiry was never concluded. The Petitioner was removed on the basis
of an allegation subject to further enquiry. However, there was no final
enquiry report holding the Petitioner guilty of the alleged forgery.
23.
It is also pertinent to note that the allegation against the Petitioner was
that the signature of the Commissioner of MCD (Mark-B) appearing on his
application for appointment, Exhibit WW1/7 was forged. The Petitioner in his
cross examination categorically stated that 'I had submitted my application,
Exhibit WW1/7 through Junior Engineer Sh. R.K Dabas posted at Punjabi Bagh.
That JE called me after one month after submitting the application and told me
that I had been taken in employment by the MCD. The JE did not hand over any
letter of appointment or any other document regarding my appointment'. From the
evidence of the Petitioner, it is clear that the Petitioner submitted an
application for appointment to the concerned JE and thereafter it was the said
JE who processed it internally. MW3 in his cross examination deposed that the
workman himself had obtained the sanction of his muster roll employment from
the Commissioner of MCD. It is unbelievable that a muster roll beldar will
directly approach the Commissioner, MCD to get the necessary approval for his
appointment. Even otherwise also perusal of the WW1/7 reveals that the
application submitted by the Petitioner for his employment was marked to
different officers in hierarchy till Commissioner, MCD. It is not possible that
the Petitioner himself obtained these sanctions on his own. The truth of these
allegations can be ascertained only by conducting a proper enquiry. However the
Respondent failed to conclude the vigilance enquiry, in this regard. Hence the
guilt of the Petitioner was not proved.
24.
Upon perusal of the impugned award it reveals that the learned Labour Court
completely ignored the evidence adduced by the parties on record. Learned
Labour Court approved the decision of the Respondent/management of removing the
Petitioner solely based on the fact that Commissioner, MCD denied his
signature. The relevant extract of the impugned award has been reproduced as
below:
"12.
It is evident from the record that the signatures of the Commissioner were not
found genuine on the approval of the appointment of the workman which led to
the termination of the workman. Admittedly, no enquiry was conducted. I am
agreeable with the argument advanced by Ld. Authorized representative of
workman that action of management not holding the enquiry has caused the
prejudice to the workman, particularly when the direction to remove the name of
workman was given by the Chief Engineer itself, whereas the allegation are that
the signatures of Commissioner on the application were not genuine. I the
person whose signatures were not found genuine is himself giving the direction
by observing that the signatures are not genuine, there is no scope for any
further enquiry. Moreover tin the entire evidence, workman has not claimed that
the signatures of the Commissioner on the applications were genuine. So in the
absence of any such contention , the plea of management that signatures of
Commissioner on the applications were not genuine, cannot be ignored
consequently, the management was having sufficient reason for the removal of
the workman and workman has failed to establish that termination of workman was
illegal. Issue is decided against the workman and in favour of
management."
25.
It is evident that the learned Labour Court proceeded with the reasoning that
since the Commissioner, whose signature was alleged to be attested in Ex. WW1/7
has himself identified disputed signature to be forged and hence directed for
the removal of the Petitioner, no enquiry was required in such a matter.
Neither Commissioner, MCD nor the concerned Chief Engineer was produced as a
witness. No investigation or enquiry was conducted in this regard. In view of
the detailed discussions herein above, this Court is of the considered view
that the Respondent failed to substantiate the allegations against the
Petitioner and hence the termination of the services of the Petitioner was
without any valid reason.
26.
The Petitioner was in employment with the Respondent only for a short duration
of approximately 9 months, i.e, for the period from 08.08.1996 to 15.05.1997.
The Petitioner was a daily wager muster roll employee and his termination
effected approximately 25 years back. Hence even if the Petitioner's
termination is held to be illegal, reinstatement in service cannot be termed as
the proper remedy. Instead, the Petitioner can be awarded compensation in lieu
of reinstatement. This Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner can
be awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-in lieu of his reinstatement, back
wages & continuity in service.”
https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
[Bhola
Thakur Vs. MCD, W.P. (C) No. 15787/2004, Decided on = 07.02.2023, Delhi High
Court]
