Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Procedure in Departmental Inquiry Adhered to Canons of Natural Justice, No Interference Warranted: Allahabad High Court Upholds Termination

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has upheld the validity of the departmental inquiry procedure leading to the termination of Charan Pal Singh, confirming that the inquiry adhered to the principles of natural justice.

Legal Background and Petitioner’s Challenge: The case arose from a writ petition filed by Charan Pal Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Ghaziabad. The petitioner contested the procedural validity of his termination, which was based on the outcome of a departmental inquiry. The primary legal question was whether the inquiry procedure violated the principles of natural justice, thereby affecting the legality of the termination.

Factual Matrix and Legal Issues: The petitioner was terminated from his service on December 18, 2010, following a departmental inquiry. Dissatisfied with the findings and the inquiry process, Singh approached the Labour Court, which upheld the inquiry's procedural validity on January 17, 2024. The decision was subsequently challenged in the High Court, raising issues about the proper application of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the adherence to natural justice during the inquiry.

The court noted that during the departmental inquiry, the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and access necessary documents.

Justice Dinesh Pathak emphasized, “All the documents which have been sought to be supplied have been supplied to the petitioner during the course of the departmental inquiry.”

Scope of Section 11-A:

The High Court detailed the powers of Labour Courts under Section 11-A, stressing that these tribunals have broad authority to reassess and overturn dismissal orders if they find them unjustified.

The court quoted, “Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act clearly denotes the ample power of the labour tribunal to examine the correctness of the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer.”

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with the court affirming the Labour Court's decision. The High Court held that the petitioner retains the right to challenge the substantive grounds of his termination in ongoing proceedings before the Labour Court. The judgment concluded that there was no justifiable reason to interfere with the Labour Court’s earlier order.

Date of Decision: April 12, 2024

Charan Pal Singh vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Second Up Ghaziabad And Another

 

Similar News