IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1563 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 8, 2011 Raja Ram …Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHI THE ACTING CHI THE ACTING CHI THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE EF JUSTICE EF JUSTICE EF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, A M.M. KUMAR, A M.M. KUMAR, A M.M. KUMAR, Acg. cg. cg. cg.C.J. 1. The instant appeal at the instance of workman- petitioner, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment dated 13.7.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the award of the Labour Court dated 25.10.2010 (P-11) and order dated 2.9.2008 (P- 10), whereby preliminary issue against the workman- petitioner has been decided holding that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper. 2. It is appropriate to mention that on 30.3.1979, an incident took place when Shri Chand Ram asked the LPA No. 1563 of 2011 2 petitioner-appellant to set the machine in order and the petitioner-appellant became furious when the request was repeated. He started abusing Shri Chand Ram and caught hold of him by his neck and slapped him. Citing the aforesaid incident, a show cause notice was issued and the petitioner-appellant was placed under suspension during the pendency of the inquiry proceedings, vide order dated 12/17.4.1979 (P-1). After obtaining reply of the petitioner- appellant an Enquiry Officer was appointed (P-2). In the inquiry, he was found guilty which eventually led to the passing of order of dismissal after obtaining due permission from the Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad. Thereafter reference was made and an order was passed on the preliminary issue whether the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper (P-3). 3. According to order dated 2.9.2008 (P-10), the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, found that the petitioner-appellant could not produce any cogent and sufficient evidence on the file to prove that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper. Even in the award dated 25.10.2010, the view taken by the management was accepted and it was held that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper and dismissal was upheld. The learned Single Judge has also upheld the aforesaid two orders. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant at considerable length and are of the view that there is no justifiable reason warranting LPA No. 1563 of 2011 3 interference in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The argument that a copy of the inquiry report has not been furnished to the petitioner-appellant would not require any detailed consideration because no prejudice is shown to have been caused. Even otherwise there is no scope for the workman to indulge in in-discipline and violence. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) November November November November 8, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2011 Judge Judge Judge Judge PKapoor