BALESHWAR PRASAD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, Delhi on an application filed by the respondent-workman, pertaining to the demand by the Management to be permitted to lead evidence on a reference pending before the Labour Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No. 4 was working as Sub-Editor with the petitioner. In the year 1974 he was suspended and a charge-sheet was served on him levelling serious acts of misconduct. A departmental enquiry was commenced and the same continued for a period of three years. The case of the petitioner is that this enquiry did not make much progress because of the alleged dilatory tactics adopted by the respondent- workman.

(3.) On 5th March, 1977 the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent whereby his services were terminated. It was stated in this letter that the workman had been obtaining adjournments from time to time on the ground of ill-health. It had, therefore been, decided by the petitioner to take action, on the basis of the continued ill-health, without prejudice to and reserving its rights and contentions in respect of the charges which had been the subject matter of disciplinary proceedings against the workman. The workman was informed by this letter that the Management had decided not to pursue further with the domestic enquiry and to revoke the order of suspension with immediate effect. The workman was further informed that the management had terminated his services on grounds of his continuous ill-healh and, as the termination was on the ground of ill-health, it was to be regarded as a case of termination simplicitor. According to the management, as per the said letter, such termination was not to be regarded as retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was further stated that, without prejudice to the aforesaid, it had been decided that the termination of the services should be in compliance with law relating to retrenchment and the respondent-workman was accordinly paid 3 months' wages in lieu of notice as well as retrenchment compensation as provided by section 3 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of service) and Miscellaneous provisions Act, 1955 read with section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reason why this was done was so as to comply with the aforesaid provisions so that in case, at a later stage, it was found that it was not a case of termination simplicitor and the termination in fact amounted to retrenchment, then the order would still not be liable to be set-aside because the provision in relation to retrenchment would have been complied with by the Management. It was categorically stated in the said letter that "It may be noted that the termination of your services in the manner aforementioned will not prejudice the rights of the Management to take any appropriate action in respect of the charges which were being enquired into or any other action in respect of the termination of your services or any payment received by you and the Company shall also be entitled to assert such rights and take such contentions as may be open to them in law in this behalf before any court or authority in appropriate proceedings".