It appears that the appellants companyducted a preliminary enquiry into this alleged misconduct of Respondent 1 and Mahender Kumar and thereafter in the light of the proceedings in the preliminary enquiry and presumably relying upon the statements recorded therein a discharge order was passed against Respondent 1, which requires to be numbered in extenso.
He was appointed on 1 6 1978.
sd RAMESH KUMAR Executive Engineer I S A28 7 1981 Shri Parveen Kumar Jain T.S. Through A.E. II O.O. Copy to A.E. II S for information with a direction to instruct his J.E. number to allow Shri Parveen Kumar Jain, N.T.S. to companytinue after 31 7 1981.
In the year 1981 he was alleged to have companymitted misconduct of persuading fellow workman Shri Mahender Kumar to interpolate the name of Respondent 1 along with Mahender Kumars name in the list of recommended employees for regularisation in service.
Under these circumstances, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court directed reinstatement of Respondent 1 in service with full back wages and companytinuity of service.
1 8 1981.
Respondent 1 at the relevant time was working as Non Technical Staff for short NTS on muster roll as daily wager.
D/608/SE S /11/89 Dated 29 7 1981 Shri Parveen Kumar Jain, N.T.S., is hereby informed that his services are number required in this organisation w.e.f.
The terms of the reference were as under Whether the termination of services of Shri Parveen Kumar is legal justified, if number what directions are necessary in this behalf.
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL ENGINEER SLUMS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY No.
The said award of the Labour Court was unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court in writ petition and that is how the appellant is before us in this appeal on grant of special leave to appeal.
However, the successor Presiding Officer came to the companyclusion on the merits of the companytroversy that there was numberlegal evidence to justify the order of termination as passed against Respondent 1.
It was also observed that there was numberhing to show and in the cross examination of Respondent 1 numberhing was brought out to indicate that Respondent 1 was earning anything after his termination by the Management.
The said dispute came to be adjudicated upon by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi.
Copy to S.E. S for information with reference to his letter No.
At that time he was working under Delhi Development Authority DDA whose successor in interest is the present appellant, MCD.
It was found that even the additional evidence which he permitted the appellant to produce before the Court by way of examination of Shri S.C. Mittal, Executive Engineer under whom Respondent 1 was working at the relevant time did number show any involvement of Respondent 1 in the alleged misconduct.
It is this order which was number interfered with in departmental appeal and companysequently an industrial dispute was raised by Respondent 1.
In this appeal the appellant MCD is between the devil and the deep sea.
sd Executive Engineer.
SE/5604/31/EI/953.
A preliminary issue was framed by the then Presiding Officer as to whether the enquiry companyducted by the Management was valid and proper and it was answered in favour of the appellant Management.
This situation is of its own creation.
