A wrong decision does not give a right to a person to enforce the wrong order and claim equality

Kosha Doshi | Symbiosis Law School, Pune | 27th March 2020

Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India v Renuka Sharma [ Writ Petition Civil – 6692/2014; Delhi High Court]

Facts:

            Renuka Sharma, the respondent worked in the LIC company of India. She had applied for a leave of 35 days to visit her husband in Singapore. The company granted her leave from the 11^th of April 2008 to the 15^th of May 2008. Having failed to join back on the 16^th of May, the company sent letters and mails to her for joining back. The letters were sent on 12^th June 2008 and 25^th August 2008. The company reached out to her via mail sent on the 18^th of September 2008 and the 4^th of October 2008. 

            A show cause notice moreover a charge sheet was issued on the 15^th of November 2008. This notice stated the reason as to why the penalty of removal should not be granted. Renuka joined back on the 27^th as a mere formality to the enquiry proceedings. She applied for another sick leave from the 27^th of December 2008 to the 10^th of January 2009. Even before the grant for leave could be obtained, she had applied for a NOC on the 28^th of December 2008 to travel to Singapore. 

            Renuka failed to appear before the enquiry on the following dates: 26^th December 2008, 5^th January 2009, 16^thJanuary 2009, 16^th February 2009, 5^th March 2009, 20^th March 2009, 6^th April 2009 and 20^th April 2009. Letters for joining were sent throughout this time period on the 24^th of January 2009, 14^th of February 2009 and the 3^rd of March 2009. Over this time period they found out that her husband suffered from hypothyroidism and therefore had to leave for Singapore to take care of him.

Current Issue:

The Industrial Tribunal put forth three issues to resolve this matter. Whether the enquiry was a just, fair and proper procedure. Whether the punishment for removal was disproportionate to the misconduct done. The third issue being the relief to be granted. The enquiry commissioner submitted his report on the 29^th of April 2009.

            On examination, the tribunal found that an equal opportunity was provided to the respondent to appear before the enquiry. This proved the procedure was just, fair and proper. Having no violation of principles of natural justice taking place the tribunal moved to the next issue at hand. The Industrial Tribunal felt that it was discriminatory in nature as the employees in the same position such as V S Iyer and Harish Chand Bhatnagar had gone on a leave abroad and were not met with penalty of removal. The tribunal stated that lower punishment was awarded to employees in similar situation thereby bringing about a difference in treatment. 

            The concerned authority issued a penalty of removal under the Regulation 39 (1)(f) of LIC of India Staff Regulation 1960. Due to the unsanctioned absence of 375 days this action was brought against her. The respondent, Renuka appealed and the memorial was submitted to the Zonal Manager and the Chairman, but the plea was declined.

Question of Law:

            The petitioner, Sr Divisional Manager of LIC of India challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The tribunal set aside penalty for removal of Renuka and imposed a penalty of reduction of three stages of basic pay of time scale. The alternate to removal from services was challenged by the petitioner in the Delhi High Court. 

The High Court of Delhi decided the case on the 4^th of December having Justice J R Midha hearing the case. The judgment passed stated that the concept of equality before law is a positive concept and must not be implemented in the negative aspect. If an irregularity or illegality is the basis of the order, the other party cannot claim the order to be enforced on the principle of equality before law. Justice JR Midha further stated that if such claims are implemented, it would set as a precedent thereby causing further continuance of this process. Eventually it would sustain the illegal procedure or order and provide discriminatory benefits to the other party. 

A reference to the judgment by the Supreme Court in the case of Gursharan Singh v. NDMC was made. The court stated that a wrong order cannot be enforce as it would defeat the purpose of justice. The Delhi High Court held the respondent guilty of grave misconduct of unsanctioned leave and stated that the petitioner’s actions for removal was proportionate to the actions. The court further stated that the tribunal had gravely caused injustice and an error had occurred by them interfering and disputing in a well settled law matter. The dismissed claim upheld the punishment of removal. With unnecessary interference the respondent made a fortune of ₹ 12,00,000/- under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Delhi HC order made it clear that an order which is wrong does not give a right to the person to enforce it and claim equality.