IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1884 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2011 Kishan Singh -----Appellant. Vs. Presiding Officer & another -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the appellant. --- 1. Whether the reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest or not? ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge upholding the award of the Labour Court. 2. The appellant was appointed as Dairyman in Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited w.e.f. 14.11.1980. He was served with a chargesheet alleging that he claimed Leave Travel Concession for the period from 16.6.1989 to 3.7.1989 without actually travelling and by submitting bogus L.P.A. No.1884 of 2010 bills, which on verification were found to be false. On inquiry, the charge was held to be established. The disciplinary authority passed an order of termination from service. On reference being made, the Labour Court adjudicated upon the issue. It was held that the workman had been given due opportunity in the departmental inquiry and the finding of misconduct was based on evidence. The punishment was not disproportionate to the charge. Accordingly, it was held that the workman was not entitled to any relief. Aggrieved thereby, writ petition was filed which has been considered by learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge held that no interference was called for with the finding recorded by the Labour Court, in absence of any illegality or irregularity in the inquiry. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Only contention which has been put forward is that lighter punishment was given to the other workmen involved in similar misconduct, which was violative of right of the appellant under Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. The same submission was put forward before the learned Single Judge. The management filed an additional affidavit dated 11.2.2010 explaining the case of other workmen by pointing out the distinguishing features. In any case, learned Single Judge rightly held that right under Article 14 of the Constitution was not of negative quality but a positive right. Merely because a wrong 2 L.P.A. No.1884 of 2010 benefit was given to one or the other person, would not create a right in favour of the appellant, if charge against the appellant was established and such charge justified the punishment imposed. 7. We, thus, do not find any error in the view taken by learned Single Judge. ` The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE May 18, 2011 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3