AJAY BHATNAGAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition the Petitioner impugnes the award dated 13th March, 2009 whereby the learned Labour Court held that it has not been proved that the services of the Petitioner were terminated by the management illegally and thus he was entitled to no relief.

(2.) Briefly the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the Petitioner was working as a mazdoor with the Respondent No. 2 when the complaints of sexual harassment at workplace were made against him. A committee in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishaka and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1997 LLR 991 was constituted. The Committee gave its finding that some instances of harassment of the complainant by the Petitioner appeared to be true and thus the allegations of harassment were partly proved. On the basis of the report of the Committee, the disciplinary authority dismissed the Petitioner from services vide its order dated 29th December, 2000. On a dispute being raised the following terms of reference were sent to the learned Labour Court for adjudication: "whether the dismissal of services of Shri Ajay Bhatnagar son of G. N. Bhatnagar by the management is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/ Government notifications and to what other reliefs is he entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?". On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were raised:

(3.) In the present case we are concerned with issue Nos. 3 & 4. As regards issue No. 3 vide order dated 3rd June, 2006 the learned Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted by the complaint Committee stood vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. However, since the management had filed an application for permitting it to prove the allegations against the workman, the said application was allowed vide order dated 11th August, 2006 and the management was permitted to lead evidence. The management examined the complainant as MW2 who deposed on oath that she was working with the management since 1989. In the year 1989-2000 she was posted as typist-cum-clerk Grade- I and at that time the Petitioner was posted as office attendant in the book section in Farm Bhawan. The Petitioner used to harass her sexually and used to speak obscene words. The Petitioner used to stalk her and try to hold her, saying if she did not accompany him, he would forcibly take her away. The Petitioner would often make bodily contact with her and use obscene expressions despite protest by the complainant. On 29th August, 2000, 30th August, 2000 and 4th October, 2000 the Petitioner threatened the complainant and her family with death. The complainant proved on record her complaint to the management, the National Commission for Women and the Police complaints. The complainant was cross-examined at length by the Petitioner. She denied that she had taken a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the Petitioner but what is material is that the Petitioner admitted having relations with the complainant and stated that the same were consensual in nature. In view of the evidence led before the learned Trial Court, it came to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the workman was not disproportionate to his misconduct of sexual harassment and thus the termination was not illegal or unjustified.