CWP No. 8225 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8225 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.05.2009 Ishwar Singh son of Inder Singh .....PETITIONER VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. A.K.Singh Goyat, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 3.9.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar (Annexure P-4), vide which the reference has been answered against the workman holding therein that the order of termination was fully justified. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court, vide its order dated 23.8.2006, had come to a conclusion that the enquiry proceedings were not in accordance with law and as such the enquiry proceedings stood vitiated. He, therefore, contends that the Labour Court CWP No. 8225 of 2009 2 has wrongly proceeded to decide the reference against the workman. He contends that once the enquiry proceedings have been held to be bad, the Labour Court could not again appreciate the evidence and come to a conclusion that the order of termination was justified. He contends that the statement of the passenger, who is alleged to have given the money to the petitioner, who is the workman and was working as a Driver with the respondents-Management, has not been examined in the Court and, therefore, the charge has not been proved against the workman. He, on this basis, contends that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. It is true that the Labour Court, vide its order dated 23.08.2006 (Annexure P-5), has held that the enquiry proceedings stood vitiated as the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. It has further been held therein that the Enquiry Officer had himself cross-examined the complainant but did not further give an opportunity to the workman to re-cross examine the complainant, therefore, the workman has been deprived of his right. The effect thereof is that the enquiry proceedings could not be relied upon or could not be made the basis for justifying the order of termination. The Labour Court has not relied upon the enquiry report but had proceeded to decide the reference on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties before it. The Management has produced MW-1 Dharamvir, Sub- Inspector, who had checked the bus and the said witness has corroborated the fact that the bus was checked by him and passenger Sh. Gopal Kishan s/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar had made a statement before him that the CWP No. 8225 of 2009 3 petitioner-workman, who was the Driver of the bus, had taken money i.e. Rs. 105/- from the passenger. When the Conductor Om Parkash came to issue the ticket, the Driver had stated that he would take his responsibility. The Conductor Sh. Om Parkash has appeared as MW-4 before the Labour Court and he has also deposed that he was told by the passenger, named above, that he had already paid a sum of Rs. 105/- to the Driver, when the Conductor approached the passenger to issue him the ticket and pay for the ticket. He further stated that the Driver has taken the responsibility of the passenger. He proved the statement of the passenger as Ex. M-2, which was recorded by the inspecting staff, when the bus was checked. On the basis of the deposition made by the above mentioned Management witness, there remains no doubt that the petitioner-workman had indeed received a sum of Rs. 105/- from the passenger and did not allow the Conductor to issue a valid ticket to him. The Management has proved the charges against the workman by exercising its right to justify the order of termination after the enquiry proceedings stood vitiated. The Management had adduced its evidence before the Labour Court and had fully proved the charges and having done so, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the order of termination was fully justified and do not call for any interference by it. Further it has also come on record that the workman-Driver was working on 89 days basis and his appointment was purely contractual appointment, which does not confer any right on him to hold the post. After the expiry of the specific period of his service, the employer had a right to discontinue his services. That being so, the findings, as recorded by the Labour Court, cannot be said to be perverse, which would call for interference by this Court. Finding no illegality in the award dated 3.9.2008 passed by the CWP No. 8225 of 2009 4 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar (Annexure P-4), which would persuade this Court to interfere in the same, the writ petition stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 27, 2009 pj Whether referred to Reporters.....................Yes/No.