The Managing Director, M/S Tidal Laboratories v. Pradeep Kumar

“Whether the termination of services of Shri Pradeep Kumar S/O Shri Mulkh Raj, R/O Village Rani, P.O. Bassi, Tehsil Naina Devi, District Bilaspur, H.P. vide letter dated 09-07-2020 (as alleged by workman) by (i) the Managing Director, M/S Tidal Laboratories Industrial Area Private Limited, Patch-5, Phase-2, Goalthai, District Bilaspur, H.P. (ii) the Factory Manager, M/S Tidal Laboratories Private Limited, Patch-5, Phase- 2, Industrial Area Goalthia, District Bilaspur, H.P. without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employers/management?” 3(ii). The claim set up by the respondent-workman was that:- 3(ii)(a). The respondent had been working with the petitioners as Granulation Operator w.e.f. 01.12.2015 upto the date of his alleged illegal termination on 18.07.2020 vide letter dated 09.07.2020. The respondent-workman asserted that he was drawing wages @ Rs.14,500/- per month. 3(ii)(b). There were genuine demands of workmen working at petitioner-factory. For seeking redressal of the demands, the respondent alongwith other co-workers had formed a branch of the Himachal Pradesh Industrial 3 Workers Union, which was registered and affiliated with AITUC. Respondent was elected as Branch Senior Vice President and one Sh. Vikram Singh as Branch President. Upon formation of the Union, a notice under Section 2K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ‘the Act’) was served upon the petitioners on 25.03.2019, raising several demands, viz. categorization of workmen, 25% increase in wages of workmen, implementation of provisions of the EPF Act, 1952 as also ESI Act, 1948, common canteen functioning, I-Cards the workmen, implementation of Model Standing Orders/Act, 1946, 20% HRA, 10% conveyance allowance, 10% uniform allowance and implementation of rules and regulations meant for the contract labour etc.. Conciliation proceedings were held on the aforesaid demand notice before the concerned Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer. Amicable settlement could not be arrived at. Failure report was submitted to the Labour Commissioner. Accordingly, Reference No.66/2020 was sent for adjudication to the learned Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, which is yet pending consideration before the Court. 3(ii)(c). Respondent alleged his victimization after the submission of demands. According to the respondent, the 4 petitioners-employer started using repressive measures against the respondent as also the said Sh. Vikram Singh. Respondent also asserted that Labour Inspector and Labour Officer also carried out inspection of the factory and found out irregularities & violation in payment of minimum wages. Accordingly, case bearing registration No.15/2020 was registered before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, which is pending adjudication. For violation of EPF Act by the petitioners, in view of complaint made by the respondent and Sh. Vikram Singh, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner imposed fine of Rs.5000/- upon the petitioners for non-production of the record. 3(ii)(d). The respondent also alleged that the petitioners had terminated services of contract workers and also curtailed the allowances being paid to the factory workmen. In this regard, the Union had submitted a demand notice on 06.11.2019 to the petitioners under Section 2K of the Act. Copy of the same was sent to the appropriate authorities. Conciliation proceedings thereupon were started by the concerned Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer. 5 3(ii)(e). On account of COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown was declared on 22.03.2020 and curfew was also imposed. Due to this reason, respondent could not join his duties w.e.f. 24.03.2020 to 07.05.2020. Petitioners did not pay him any wages for the aforesaid period, rather, asked the respondent to join duty during curfew and handed him over a pass for travelling through one of the factory worker namely Sh. Ram Pal on 08.05.2020. On receiving the pass, respondent performed his duties on 08.05.2020, but on

09.05.2020, when the respondent reached home, the President of Gram Panchayat Bassi asked him to remain at home for 14 days, i.e. till 17.05.2020, since he had attended the funeral ceremony of his elder aunt at Village Chalola in District Una on 04.05.2020. The respondent also asserted that he had travelled to Village Chalola after obtaining curfew travelling pass the District Magistrate, Bilaspur on 04.05.2020. In view of the quarantine period and as per the directions of the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat concerned, the respondent remained at home till 17.05.2020. He joined his duties on 18.05.2020 and found that there were workers in the factory premises, but proper cleaning and sanitization facilities were not there. The respondent represented to the management of 6 the petitioners-factory for following the COVID-19 protocols and also prayed for releasing wages to the workmen for the lockdown period. This was not taken well by the petitioners. 3(ii)(f). On 19.05.2020, the respondent was placed under suspension on fabricated charges. He was served with charge-sheet on 25.05.2020 with direction to file reply within two days. Respondent responded to the charge sheet on 26.05.2020. On 30.05.2020, petitioners appointed an inquiry officer, who vide his communication dated

27.06.2020, fixed the inquiry proceedings on 01.07.2020. The inquiry proceedings, however, were not held on the scheduled date. Petitioners even asked the respondent to submit a formal resignation, not later than 15.07.2020. Respondent did not submit reply. Petitioners terminated his services w.e.f.

18.07.2020. Respondent remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. 3(iii). Petitioners in response admitted respondent had joined as their workman in December, 2015 and terminating his services w.e.f. 18.07.2020. Petitioners defended terminating respondent’s services on the ground that the same was done after complying due process of law and providing due opportunity of hearing. That the respondent had remained absent unauthorizedly 7 and also instigated other workmen for remaining absent from duty. The petitioners denied there being any genuine demands of the workmen. Salary drawn by the respondent was admitted as Rs.14,500/- per month alongwith other incentives. According to the petitioners, due to COVID-19 pandemic, working of the company was temporarily affected. On 06.05.2020, petitioner-employer directed the respondent to resume his official duties. Respondent joined on 08.05.2020, but attended to his duties only till

10.05.2020. According to the petitioners, the respondent remained continuously absent w.e.f. 11.05.2020 without any reasonable explanation or authorization from the petitioners. Accordingly, on 16.05.2020, a show cause notice was issued by the petitioners to the respondent for his unauthorized absence. The respondent had instigated other workers and filed complaint against the petitioners on

18.05.2020. Charge-sheet was served upon the respondent on 25.05.2020. It was duly inquired into. Guilt of the respondent was proved and he was accordingly terminated from service. 3(iv). The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. On considering the same, learned 8 Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, inter alia, returned the factual findings that:- (a). Respondent had worked with the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2015 upto 18.07.2020. (b). Respondent was Branch Senior Vice President of Himachal Pradesh Industrial Workers Union that was formed for redressal of certain demands of the workmen. Demand notice had been served by the Union. Conciliation proceedings were also held thereupon, which led to registration of Case Nos.14 and 15 of 2020 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur as also reference petitions pending adjudication before the concerned Labour Court. The petitioners had directed the respondent to resume duties from 06.05.2020, i.e. during the COVID-19 period. Petitioners’ allegation against the respondent was that he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f.

11.05.2020. For this reason, on 16.05.2020, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent for his alleged unauthorized absence. The factum regarding joining of duties by the respondent on 08.05.2020 and 09.05.2020 was explained by the Gram Panchayat, as according to the respondent, he had gone to attend the funeral of his elder aunt on 9

04.05.2020 on the basis of Covid pass issued by the authorities. After receiving the directions of the Gram Panchayat, he followed the advice to remain in quarantine. (c). Petitioners did not examine the inquiry officer. Inquiry proceedings were not proved to have been conducted as per law. No witnesses were examined at the time of conduct of alleged inquiry proceedings. In absence of examination of witnesses, conclusion of guilt against the respondent reached by the inquiry officer was not admissible. The allegations leveled in the charge-sheet against the respondent were not proved by examination of witnesses. The termination of services of the respondent was held illegal. (d). Respondent retrenchment compensation or pay in lieu of notice of his dis-engagement as per the provisions of the Act. Relevant observations of the learned Labour Court are as under:- “14. Petitioner in his cross-examination has denied that he had failed to appear before inquiry officer on the informed date and also stated that one employee Sanjeev Kumar had told him and the defense counsel that the inquiry Officer had not come to the factory premises on the date fixed for hearing i.e. 1.7.2020. PW2 Shri Bhag Singh has also corroborated the above version of the petitioner.

#16. Admittedly, petitioner had not been paid any retrenchment compensation or pay in lieu of notice of his disengagement as per the provisions of the Industrial 10 Disputes Act, 1947. RW1 Shri Sanjeev Kumar has also admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of termination of the petitioner no permission was sought from this court or from the appropriate government. He also admitted that neither one month's notice or pay in lieu of notice was given to the petitioner. It is rightly argued by learned Authorized Representative for the petitioner that once respondents are alleging the termination of the petitioner consequent to the inquiry proceedings the examination-of-the Inquiry Officer was mandatory in this case. The inquiry officer has not been examined by the respondents. The so-called verbal inquiry is not proved to have been conducted as per law and no witnesses were examined at the time of conduct of inquiry. In absence of examination of witnesses conclusion of guilt against the petitioner by the inquiry officer is clearly not admissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 has held in paras no.27, 28 and 30 as follows:- “27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned government servant is absent, he would clearly the benefit of cross-examination of witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge. charge-sheet. Since

#28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He to be a the department/disciplinary representative of authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to is not supposed 11 whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.

#30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service.”

#17. There is no document produced by the respondents to show that petitioner was duly notified to appear at the time of conduct of the alleged inquiry. No witnesses have been examined by inquiry officer while coming to the conclusion regarding guilt of the accused, thus contention of the respondents regarding an inquiry is farce and afterthought. The allegations made in the charge-sheet were not proved by examination of inquiry as well as conclusion witness hence the regarding termination of the services of petitioner was illegal. There was no compliance of the provisions of Sections 25 Clause F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hence issue no.1 is decided in the favour of petitioner and against the respondents.” Feeling aggrieved against the award dated

26.02.2026, petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

#4. Scope for interference with the awards passed by learned Labour Court was summed up in K.V.S. Ram 12 Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation2 as under:- “14. Once the Labour Court has exercised the discretion judicially, the High Court can interfere with the award, only if it is satisfied that the award of the Labour Court is vitiated by any fundamental flaws. We do not find that the award passed by the Labour Court suffers from any such flaws. While interfering with the award of the Labour Court, the High Court did not keep in view the parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of judgment cannot be India and sustained.” impugned In Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd.3 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court can interfere with an order of the Tribunal only on the procedural level and in cases, where the decision of the lower courts has been arrived at in gross violation of the legal principles. The High Court shall interfere with factual aspect placed before the Labour Courts only when it is convinced that the Labour Court has made patent mistakes in admitting evidence illegally or have made grave errors in law in coming to the conclusion on facts. The High Court granting contrary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution amounts to exceeding jurisdiction conferred upon it. 2 (2015) 12 SCC 39 3 (2014)11 SCC 85 13 In Basamma & Anr. versus Goparappa and Ors.4, Apex Court reiterated and recapitulated the settled principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary and certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution that while exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court does not act as Court of appeal over findings, more so, of facts recorded by the subordinate Courts or Tribunals. The High Court does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the subordinate Courts is purported to be based. Such a writ jurisdiction may be invoked in cases where there is an error of law, jurisdictional error or patent illegality. The foundational facts of the present case are not in dispute. In the given facts and circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the learned Labour Court that services of the respondent were illegally terminated by the petitioners without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is justified. Learned Labour Court has justly concluded that the so-called inquiry said to have been conducted upon the charge-sheet issued to the respondent, projected by the petitioners as the basis for removing the respondent, was farce. The conclusion of guilt 4 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10183 of 2024, decided on 16.07.2026 14 drawn against the respondent by the inquiry officer was not admissible as record established that neither witnesses were examined nor inquiry proceedings were conducted with due process of law. Inquiry Officer was not even examined by the petitioners. Violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act was also held established. The facts and circumstances of the case justified imposing compensation of Rs.1 Lakh upon the petitioners for having vindictively terminated the services of the respondent- workman during COVID-19 period on cultivated grounds.

#5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned award. This writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 06, 2026 Mukesh Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge