CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5377 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 Varinder Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, has disposed of 11 different references made by the Central Government in respect of different workmen and has dismissed the references as made through a common order passed on 30.6.2009. The petitioner-workmen, therefore, have filed 10 different petitions to impugn the said award. The award being common, all the ten Civil Writ Petition bearing Nos.5377 of 2010 (Varinder Singh Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5377 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: Chandigarh and others) , 2795 of 2010 (Sohan Pal and others Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others) , 5378 of 2010 (Hari Singh Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others) , 5383 of 2010 (Rakesh Kumar Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others) , 5388 of 2010 (Bengali Bapu Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others) , 5391 of 2010 (Nihal Singh Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others) , 5397 of 2010 (Hakam Singh Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others) , 5398 of 2010 (Turashan Pal Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others) , 5399 of 2010 (Radhey Shyam Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others) , and 5410 of 2010 (Mohan Singh Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others) are being disposed of through this common order. The facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No.5377 of 2010. The main question for consideration before the Labour Court was whether the initial appointments of all these workmen were CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5377 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: bad in law having been obtained on the basis of a forged and fraudulent documents showing them to have worked for 3 months at the Etawah. The consequential issue is accordingly raised about the validity of their termination order. All these workman would claim that they had met one Amrik Singh, who directed them to join under him. Amrik Singh obtained their thumb impressions/signatures and they accepted the condition as they were in dire need of employment. In the year 1989, charge sheet was given to every workman for securing their employment through an unfair means by producing fictitious casual labour card containing the signatures of every workman prior to their appointment. The identical reply filed by each workman to the charge sheet was considered and found not satisfactory. Departmental enquiry was accordingly ordered and conducted. As per the workman, they did not know the procedure, being illiterate. It is stated that no witnesses were examined and on the basis of the statements made by the workmen, enquiry report was submitted and the services of the workmen were terminated on 23.7.1994. The appeal preferred by the workmen were also dismissed on 2.8.1996. On behalf of the management, it was pleaded that workmen had obtained the appointments in the Railway Department through Sh.Amrik Singh and secured their appointment letters as Gang Man as per the policy of Railways but on the basis of fictitious casual labour card. When this fact came to the notice of the respondents, explanation was sought from the workmen, followed by enquiry, where due opportunities were afforded to all the workmen. As per the management, the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5377 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: and on the basis of a report, the petitioner-workmen were dismissed after affording opportunity of hearing. The termination led to raising of an industrial dispute, which has now been decided by the Labour Court against the workmen and, thus, they have filed the respective writ petitions. While declining the reference, the finding returned by the Labour Court is that the initial appointment of every workman was based on fictitious entry in the job card. This fact has been proved by three management witnesses, who deposed that the petitioners never worked at Etawah. Rather, the workmen themselves had admitted that they did not work at Etawah in the Railway Department. The documents were also led in evidence to show that these workmen never worked with the Railways at Etawah. It was, thus, established that initial appointments of these workmen were based on fictitious documents produced by them. Once the initial appointment is found to be bad, the petitioners can not be heard to urge that by rendering substantial service, their appointments would deserve to be legalised. The submission made by the learned counsel that they were illiterate persons and Amrik Singh was responsible for obtaining the fictitious or false certificates, would not absolve them of their respective responsibility as they alone would be responsible for the same, being the beneficiaries of fictitious/false certificates. The submission that some other persons were also appointed in a similar manner, is no ground to uphold their illegal appointment to be valid. There is no reason or cause made out for interfering in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The order of termination has been passed after CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5377 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: following the due process of law and after holding proper enquiry. No submission in this regard is made before the Court. There is no merit in the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. September 23, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE