Delhi High Court Upholds Labour Court Award of ₹5,00,000 for Illegal Termination of Bus Driver, Rejects Employer’s Claims of Voluntary Abandonment and Fabricated Settlement Voucher, Imposes Litigation Costs

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court’s award of ₹5,00,000 as compensation to the respondent workman for illegal termination of service. The court rejected the petitioner management’s claims of voluntary abandonment of service and ruled that the alleged full and final settlement voucher was fabricated. Additionally, the court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner for litigation expenses, directing payment within a week.

Facts:

1. Background:
   • The respondent (a bus driver) was employed by the petitioner from 2002 (as per respondent) or 2005 (as per petitioner).
   • The respondent alleged that his services were illegally terminated on September 9, 2012, without any prior notice or payment of wages from August 1, 2012, to September 8, 2012.
2. Petitioner’s Claim:
   • The petitioner alleged that the respondent voluntarily abandoned his job after accepting a full and final settlement of ₹30,000 through a voucher dated September 8, 2012.
   • It was claimed that the respondent requested advance payment on August 25, 2012, and stopped reporting for duty after August 27, 2012.
   • The petitioner further claimed that the respondent later joined another job and collected the final settlement amount in cash in the last week of September 2012.
3. Labour Court’s Findings:
   • The Labour Court concluded that the petitioner failed to prove its claims of abandonment and settlement.
   • It held that the alleged settlement voucher was fabricated and awarded the respondent ₹5,00,000 as compensation for illegal termination.

Issues:

1. Was the termination of the respondent’s service illegal, or was it a case of voluntary abandonment of service by the respondent?
2. Was the alleged full and final settlement voucher valid and genuine?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Voluntary Abandonment:
   • The respondent abandoned his job after requesting advance payment and later informed the petitioner that he had taken up employment elsewhere.
   • The petitioner offered to reinstate the respondent in its written reply, but he refused.
2. Employment and Settlement:
   • The petitioner contended that the respondent falsely claimed unemployment, despite admitting during cross-examination that he was employed elsewhere.
   • A settlement voucher dated September 8, 2012, signed by the respondent, allegedly indicated full and final settlement of dues amounting to ₹30,000.
3. Precedent Cited:
   • The petitioner relied on Sonal Garments vs. Trimbak Shankar Karve, where it was held that a workman refusing an offer for reinstatement would not be entitled to reinstatement or back wages.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Illegal Termination:
   • The respondent claimed that he was dismissed on September 9, 2012, without notice or payment of wages for the previous month.
   • He alleged that the petitioner neither reinstated him nor paid his dues despite repeated complaints to the Labour Commissioner.
2. Fabricated Settlement Voucher:
   • The respondent denied signing any settlement voucher and alleged that the document was fabricated by the petitioner to evade liability.
3. Labour Inspector’s Report:
   • A report by the Labour Inspector (dated December 4, 2012) stated that the petitioner had refused to reinstate the respondent or pay his earned wages.
4. Nature of Employment:
   • While the respondent admitted to subsequent employment, he argued that it was irregular, involving distance-based wages, and did not negate his rights under labour laws.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Scope of Article 226:
   • The High Court reiterated that judicial review under Article 226 is limited to examining whether:
     • The decision-making process of the Labour Court was proper.
     • The findings were based on evidence.
   • The court emphasized that it cannot act as an appellate court to re-evaluate factual findings unless there is a glaring legal infirmity.
2. Principles of Natural Justice:
   • The Labour Court’s findings were upheld, as they were based on proper consideration of evidence, including the Labour Inspector’s report and cross-examination of witnesses.
3. Precedent Analysis:
   • The court distinguished the case from Sonal Garments vs. Trimbak Shankar Karve, noting that the petitioner failed to provide credible evidence of reinstatement or settlement. The Labour Court’s findings were based on facts specific to the case.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Fabricated Voucher:
   • The petitioner claimed that the respondent signed a settlement voucher on September 8, 2012, but received the payment in the last week of September. However, there was no evidence to support this claim.
   • The petitioner’s reply to the respondent’s legal notice (dated September 18, 2012) did not mention any settlement, further weakening its credibility.
   • The Labour Inspector’s report, prepared after a site visit on September 28, 2012, made no reference to any settlement or payment.
2. Subsequent Employment:
   • The court held that the respondent’s irregular employment after termination did not invalidate his claim of illegal termination. Labour laws protect workmen even when they are compelled to seek alternative employment due to delays in dispute resolution.
3. Reinstatement Offer:
   • The petitioner’s claim that it offered reinstatement was not supported by evidence. The Labour Inspector’s report contradicted this claim.

Conclusion:

The High Court upheld the Labour Court’s award, concluding that:

• The petitioner failed to establish its claims of voluntary abandonment and settlement.
• The respondent was entitled to ₹5,00,000 as compensation for illegal termination.
• The court imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the petitioner for litigation expenses.

Implications:

1. Protection of Workmen’s Rights:
   • The judgment emphasizes that employers cannot escape liability through fabricated evidence or baseless claims of voluntary abandonment.
2. Judicial Review under Article 226:
   • The decision reinforces the limited scope of judicial review in labour disputes, ensuring that findings based on evidence are not overturned unless there is a significant legal error.
3. Accountability for Employers:
   • Employers must maintain proper records and avoid misrepresentation in labour disputes to avoid adverse rulings and additional costs.

The ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to protecting workers’ rights and ensuring fair treatment in employment disputes.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award: Rejects Challenge Against Liquidated Damages, Unlawful Encashment of Performance Bank Guarantee, and Misinterpretation of Price Variation Clause in Metro Rail Supply Contract Dispute