IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 3506 of 1989 Date of Decision:- 20.01.2009 Inder Kumar Datta ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & anr. ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mrs.Avtar Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, the prayer is for modifying the order/award passed by the Labour Court, Chandigarh dated 6.8.1986 vide which the Court although reinstated the workman with continuity of service and all attendant benefits but granted 50% back wages only. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that once the Court has come to a finding that the enquiry held against the workman was not in accordance with law and when the workman has been reinstated with continuity of service along with all attendant benefits, depriving him of the benefit of 50% of back-wages would not be justified. It is further her submission that in the arbitration proceedings which have been held, the Arbitrator had given a finding that it was Sh.R.K.Verma, Branch Incharge, Super Bazaar, Sector 17, Chandigarh, who had embezzled the amount. She further relies upon the order dated 18.10.1988 (Annexure P-2) passed by the appellate Authority in the appeal preferred by Sh.R.K.Sharma, wherein it has been C.W.P.No. 3506 of 1989 -2- categorically held that Sh.Sharma, was the person who, as a matter of fact, embezzled the said amount which is alleged to have been a charge against the petitioner-workman. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. The allegations against the workman were that he had embezzled certain amount and on that basis, an enquiry was held against him holding him guilty. The Labour Court on going through the pleadings and evidence on record came to the conclusion that the delinquent employee has been condemned unheard. He was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He was not given the list of witnesses prior to the start of the enquiry nor given any opportunity to lead evidence in defence. All these circumstances were held to be sufficient to vitiate the enquiry proceedings and on that basis, the enquiry held against the workman was held to be vitiated. A perusal of the order dated 18.10.1988 (Annexure P-2) would show that the same came into existence after passing of the award which is dated 6.8.1986. No cognizance of the same could be taken as it was neither produced before the Labour Court nor had been pleaded accordingly. On the basis of the evidence and the pleadings of the parties before it, the learned Labour Court has arrived at a definitive conclusion that the ends of justice would be fully met if the workman is granted 50% of the back wages, that too in view of the serious irregularity which is alleged to have been committed by the workman. A perusal of the award further shows that the Labour Court had not exonerated the workman from the charges C.W.P.No. 3506 of 1989 -3- levelled against him. The finding which has been given by the Labour Court is that the enquiry which has been held against him was not in accordance with law. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to take a contrary view from the one taken by the Labour Court and accordingly dismiss this writ petition. January 20, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No