STEPHENS HOSPITAL Vs. WORKMAN SH. S.K. ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, St. Stephens Hospital has approached this Court against an order dated 16th May, 2006 passed by the Labour Court -XX (Fast Track), Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in ID No. 595/2006 (Old No. 550/1998). By that order, the Labour Court set aside the enquiry that was instituted by the Hospital against the respondent/workman on the ground that the Enquiry Officer, who happened to be retired District Judge, had violated the principles of natural justice by not permitting the workman to be represented by one Mr. Hamilton despite a request by the respondent in that behalf. The Labour Court felt that as a result of this refusal, the respondent/workman was denied a proper and fair opportunity to defend himself and for that reason, the enquiry proceedings stood vitiated and deserve to be set aside. As requested by the petitioner in its written statement before the Labour Court, after the enquiry was set aside for the aforesaid reason, the petitioner management was given an opportunity to prove its charges against the respondent/workman in the Court. The matter was thereafter posted for management evidence.

(2.) THE respondent was working with the petitioner as a Cashier since 1972. On 4.7.1994, the respondent was served with a charge sheet, wherein the respondent was stated to be responsible for shortage of cash of Rs. 6,000/ -, and for tampering with certain vital records of the section relating to the matter. The petitioner appointed one Sh. R.N. Mehrotra, a retired Additional District Judge, as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. The respondent requested the Enquiry Officer to permit one Mr. Hamilton to represent him in the enquiry. At that time, Mr. Hamilton was the President of the St. Stephens Hospital Employees Association. On 25th August, 1994, the Enquiry Officer rejected this request on the ground that Mr. Hamilton had never been an employee of the Hospital and he was, therefore, an outsider. Ultimately, after the enquiry was completed, the petitioner terminated the services of the respondent/workman on 27th November, 1995.

(3.) IT is the petitioner 's case that the finding by the Labour Court to the effect that by rejection to the request of the respondent, to be represented by Mr. Hamilton, the petitioner has violated the principles of natural justice, is ex -facie erroneous in as much as the rules governing domestic enquiries in force, in petitioner hospital including, inter alia, Rule 6, clearly provide that a charge sheeted employee can only seek assistance of a co -employee. The relevant portion of the said rules reads as follows;