Civil Writ Petition No.3186 of 1997. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No.3186 of 1997. Date of decision:7.2.2008. Punjab State Electricity Board. ...Petitioner. Versus Gurvinder Singh and another. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present; Mr. Y. P. Khullar Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.R. Mahajan Advocate for respondent No.1. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. Challenge in this Civil Writ Petition is to the award dated 24.9.1996, Annexure P10, passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar vide which reference made by Gurvinder Singh, workman was answered in his favour and he was reinstated into service with continuity of service. The workman pleaded that he was in regular employment of petitioner as work charge at Behram Sub Division No.1, Punjab State Electricity Board. Due to heavy floods, he went on leave from Civil Writ Petition No.3186 of 1997. -2- 2.7.1993 to 7.7.1993. He found that his house-hold articles had been washed away by the floods. He received letter dated 13.7.1993 from the petitioner to which he sent reply by registered post on 23.7.1993. Thereafter he reported for duty on 26.7.1993 but he was not allowed to join duty. His services were illegally terminated. The Punjab State Electricity Board admitted that the workman joined duty under Sub Divisional Officer, Behram Sub Division, Sub Division of Banga Division on 21.7.1992 as R.T.M by procuring office order No.1050 dated 22.6.1992. He also produced No Demand Certificate. The office order and No Demand Certificate were of doubtful authenticity. So, the office order was referred to the Director (Personnel), P.S.E.B, Patiala and No Demand Certificate was referred to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sujanpur. The Director (Personnel) vide his memo No.36480/GN-159 dated 19.7.1993 and No.11047 dated 30.7.1993 intimated that the said office order had not been issued by him. Similarly, S.D.O, Sujanpur vide his memo No.3130 dated 24.9.1993 also wrote that No Demand Certificate was not issued by him and that the workman never worked in that Sub Division. Therefore, there was no valid contract of employment between the parties as no appointment offer was given to the workman by the management and hence the reference was not maintainable. The learned Labour Court framed the following issues:- 1.Whether termination of service of the workman Civil Writ Petition No.3186 of 1997. -3- concerned is justified and in order?OPR. 2.Relief. Returning the finding on issue No.1 in favour of the workman, he was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages. I have heard arguments of both sides and have gone through the record of the case. The Punjab State Electricity Board has taken a definite stand that Gurvinder Singh was never appointed by it and that he has forged the transfer order, on the basis of which he has joined duty. The learned Labour Court in para No.11 has observed that if there was any doubt about the authenticity of the transfer order, the same should have been got clarified. It was further observed in para No.12 that the petitioner shall be at liberty to take disciplinary action after issuing show cause notice of the allegations given in the written statement. On the last date of hearing, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 was orally directed to produce the documents. Mr. B. R. Mahajan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has stated at the Bar that the documents have been washed away in floods and on that count the documents could not be produced. There are allegations made by the Punjab State Electricity Board that respondent No.1 has forged the transfer order on the basis of which he has joined duty. That was a vital question for determination but the learned Labour Court has not framed any issue in that regard Civil Writ Petition No.3186 of 1997. -4- and has ordered the re-instatement without deciding the said controversy. That approach of the Labour Court is against the principles of natural justice. In case the Punjab State Electricity Board is able to prove the fact that respondent No.1 has joined duty on the basis of forged documents and in spite of that, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the workman without deciding that controversy, it will amount to perpetuating the fraud of workman/respondent No.1. It was the legal duty of the learned Labour Court to decide the controversy i.e. whether the transfer order is forged or fabricated document. So, it is a fit case to set aside the award of the Labour Court and to remand the case for fresh decision. The following additional issue stands framed:- “Whether office order/transfer orders dated No.1050 dated 22.6.1992 and No Dues Certificate produced by the workman are forged and fabricated documents?OPM”. The learned Labour Court shall decide the reference, after giving full opportunity to both the parties, within a period of four months from the receipt of order of this Court. The parties are directed to appear before the Court on 26.2.2008. In case, any of the parties does not appear before the Labour Court on that day, the Labour Court will be well within its right to proceed in accordance with law. Civil Writ Petition No.3186 of 1997. -5- This Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. February 7,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge