C.W.P.No.19608 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19608 of 2007 Date of Decision : 16.1.2008 Inder Raj Chauhan .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award of the learned Labour Court dated 8.1.2004, Annexure P-7. Vide the aforesaid Award, the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner in respect of termination of his services after conduct of domestic enquiry, was found to be without any merit. Though the present writ petition has been filed after more than 3 years of the publication of the Award, but keeping the question of delay aside, we do not find any ground to interfere in the Award passed even on merits. The sole challenge to the Award of the learned Labour Court is on the ground that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied before the order of punishment was passed by the management. The learned C.W.P.No.19608 of 2007 2 Labour Court has held that the petitioner has not pleaded the factum of non supply of the enquiry report nor led any evidence. The learned Labour Court also held that the petitioner has not shown any prejudice having suffered by the him on account of non supply of the enquiry report. Though, it is admitted by the petitioner that no pleading regarding non supply of enquiry report was asserted in the claim statement, but it is argued that while appearing as witness, the petitioner has deposed that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him. The fact remains that there is no evidence or circumstance which has caused prejudice to the petitioner on account of non supply of the enquiry report. The petitioner was charge sheeted on 31.5.1988 and an order of dismissal was passed on 11.5.1991. The petitioner has participated in the enquiry proceedings, cross examined the witnesses produced by the management and thereafter the finding was returned by the Enquiry Officer of proof of the misconduct by the petitioner. Thus, in the absence of an iota of prejudice having suffered by the petitioner, we do not find any ground in the present writ petition to interfere in the Award passed by the learned Labour Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 16-01-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE