LPA No.114 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.114 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.07.2009 Amarjit Singh ....Appellant. Versus Market Committee, Bathinda and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand Present: Ms. Poonam Sambar, Advocate for the appellant. ... J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral). On account of the alleged unauthorised absence of the appellant from his office on 6.1.1986, 7.1.1986, as well as, from 14.1.1986 to 20.1.1986, the services of the appellant were terminated by an order dated 12.2.1986. The appellant assailed the order of his termination by raising an industrial dispute. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court), dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant vide an order stated 3.6.1988 (Annexure P-5). The appellant then approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.11765 of 1988, wherein he challenged the order passed by the Labour Court dated 3.6.1988. The aforesaid writ petition was, however, dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 25.11.2008. The appellant has assailed the aforesaid order by filing the instant Letters Patents Appeal. LPA No.114 of 2009 2 Learned counsel for the appellant, in the first instance, reiterated the same plea as was advanced before the learned Single Judge, namely, that the order of termination had been passed against the appellant without holding a regular departmental enquiry. So far as the instant issue is concerned, the learned Single Judge while accepting the order passed by the Labour Court, held that it was not necessary to hold a regular departmental enquiry in the case of the appellant, on account of the fact, that the appellant had admitted his unauthorised absence specifically for the period from 14.1.1986 to 20.1.1986. It is, therefore, that the learned Single Judge did not accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. We find no infirmity in the aforesaid determination. It is only when the delinquency alleged against the workman is disputed by him, that a regular departmental enquiry is called for. No domestic enquiry needs to be held when delinquency is admitted. No other submission was advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge ( S.D. Anand ) Judge 02.07.2009 sk.