Delhi High Court · 2025-09-12
SHRI MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM HOSPITAL AYURVEDIC RESEARCH INSTITUTES vs SARDARAM BHATI
- Citation / case number
- LPA-521/2024 2025:DHC:8087-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- SHRI MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM HOSPITAL AYURVEDIC RESEARCH INSTITUTES
- Respondent
- SARDARAM BHATI
Judgment text excerpt
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 12th SEPTEMBER, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: + LPA 521/2024, CM APPL. 36000/2024 SHRI MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM HOSPITAL AYURVEDIC RESEARCH INSTITUTES .....Appellant Through: Dr. M.Y. Khan, Advocate versus SARDARAM BHATI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jawahar Raja, Ms. Meghna De & Mr. Ritwik Raj, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE JUDGMENT SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J. 1. The Appellant has filed the present Appeal assailing the Judgment dated 28.03.2024, passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court by which the Court has upheld three Impugned Orders passed by the Learned Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in O.P. No. 2466/2016 (Old O.P. No. 16/2010), Order dated 03.02.2011, by which, the domestic enquiry was vitiated, Order dated 06.09.2017, by which, the right of Appellant to lead evidence on misconduct was closed, and Order dated 06.12.2017, by which, the Approval Application of the Appellant was dismissed. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts leading to the filing of the present Appeal is as under: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH LPA 521/2024 Page 1 of 17 Signing Date:15.09.2025 10:51:37 i. The Appellant is a private hospital which was established by the Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust. ii. The Respondent was appointed as a ward boy vide appointment letter dated 08.07.1985. iii. As per the Counsel for the Appellant, the Respondent was engaged in instances of misconduct. A chargesheet dated 07.04.2004 was issued to him. Reply was filed by the Respondent refuting the allegations. A domestic enquiry was initiated against the Respondent wherein he was held guilty of the charges of misconduct. The charges of misconduct against the Respondent were as follows: