Civil Writ Petition No. 17777 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 17777 of 2002 Date of Decision: 7.4.2008 State of Haryana and Another …Petitioners Versus Ram Mehar and Another. …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioners. Mr. P.K.Sachdeva, Advocate for respondent No.1. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present writ petition has been filed by the State of Haryana through its State Transport Commissioner, Haryana, and General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani, challenging the impugned award dated 21.12.2000 (Annexure P5) passed by learned Labour Court, Rohtak, whereby it has been ordered that respondent No.1-workman is entitled to be reinstated on his previous post with continuity of services and 60% of back wages. Respondent No.1-workman (hereinafter referred to as “the workman”) was appointed as Helper Tyreman by the Management on Civil Writ Petition No. 17777 of 2002 2 5.3.1984 on daily wage basis. On 1.5.1991 the workman was transferred from Gurgaon to Charkhi Dadri. Services of workman were regularized as Helper Tyreman w.e.f. 1.5.1992 in pay scale of Rs.750- 940/-. The services of the workman were terminated on 21.6.1994. Order of termination dated 21.6.1994 (Annexure P1) was passed by stating that it is not possible to issue charge sheet under Rule 7 of the Civil Services Rules, 1982 and, therefore, by dispensing with the domestic enquiry, order of termination was passed by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. Order dated 21.6.1994 (Annexure P1), however, stated the following charges:- “1. When you reached in Tyre Branch from Hisar for giving the report of tyres then Shri Ram Sarup S.S.I. ordered to you to do your work, but you suddenly started beating Shri Ram Sarup S.S.I. by fists and blows and kicks and said who appointed you S.S.I. Shri Ram Sarup was rescued by Satish Kumar Tyreman. You were brought before the Works Manager and but misbehaved with the Works Manager also by beating him and tearing his shirt. 2. The Works Manager support this occurrence and wrote the complaint that you misbehave by beating him and tearing his shirt and insulted him”. As per Claim Statement dated 8.3.1997 (Annexure P3), the workman had challenged the order of termination (Annexure P1) by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 17777 of 2002 3 writ petition in this Hon’ble Court, however, the same was withdrawn and the following order was passed:- “For the reasons stated above the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner shall, however, be free to avail remedy available to him under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947”. Learned Labour Court held that the Management is entitled to lead evidence to prove the evidence of misconduct against the workman in the proceedings before it as the Management could not conduct domestic enquiry before passing of termination order (Annexure P1). Thereafter, the Management led its evidence to prove the misconduct on the part of the workman. Learned Labour Court after appreciating the evidence held that the Management had failed to adduce convincing evidence to prove the allegations of misconduct against the workman and ordered his reinstatement with 60% back wages. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-State. He has relied on statement of Management witness Sultan Singh (Annexure P6) to urge that the finding of fact recorded by learned Labour Court after appreciating evidence is bad on law and facts. We have perused the statement (Annexure P6) of the Management Witness No.6 Sultan Singh. In cross-examination he has stated that the occurrence had not happened before him and in writ jurisdiction we will not be in a position to re-appreciate the evidence. We do not find that the finding recorded by learned Labour Court that there was no misconduct on the part of the workman is perverse. Therefore, Civil Writ Petition No. 17777 of 2002 4 we uphold the award dated 21.12.2000 (Annexure P5). However, in alternate, learned State counsel has urged that awarding of 60% back wages is not justified as the workman was a Helper Tyreman and he could pursue his avocation. Mr. R.K.Sachdeva, Advocate, appearing for the workman has stated that he is ready to forego 20% of the back wages and will be satisfied if the award is modified and restricted to 40% of the back wages. Accordingly, we modify the award (Annexure P5) and hold that the workman will not be entitled to 60% of back wages and restrict his entitlement of back wages only to the extent of 40%. With these modifications regarding payment of back wages, we uphold and affirm the impugned award dated 21.12.2000 (Annexure P5) passed by learned Labour Court and the writ petition is disposed off in above terms. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge April 7, 2008 “DK”