IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5675 of 2002 (O/M). Date of Decision : February 11, 2010. The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rewari ...... Petitioner. Versus. Rameshwar Dayal and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Yadav, Advocate, for respondent no. 1/Workman. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner/Management (hereinafter referred to as “the Management”), challenging the Order dated 15.02.2000 (Annexure-P-8), vide which the inquiry proceedings held against respondent No. 1/Workman (hereinafter referred to as “the Workman”) was set aside on the ground that it was not in accordance with law and the Award dated 16.01.2001 (Annexure-P-9), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon, (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”), vide which the reference had been answered in favour of the Workman, holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Counsel for the Management vehemently argues that the Order dated 15.02.2000 (Annexure-P-8) is not in accordance with law as overwhelming evidence was led by the Management that the Workman had associated with the inquiry proceedings. He further contends that the finding that the principle of natural justice was not followed as the chargesheet was C.W.P. No. 5675 of 2002 (O/M). -2- not served upon the Workman, thus, cannot be sustained. While challenging the Award dated 16.01.2001 (Annexure-P-9), counsel for the Management submits that the Labour Court had not appreciated the evidence, which had been led by the Management before it. Baljit Singh/MW-1 and Hans Raj/MW-2 were cross examined by the Management, who had fully supported the stand of the Management and their evidence when taken into consideration would prove mis-conduct against the Workman. He on this basis prays that the impugned Order dated 15.02.2000 (Annexure-P-8) and Award dated 16.01.2001 (Annexure-P-9) be set aside by allowing this writ petition. On the other hand counsel for the Workman submits that an inquiry, if held against a Workman, the basic principle, which is required to be followed is that he must at least be made aware of the charges levelled against him. It is an admitted position on behalf of the Management that no reply was filed by the Workman, this was for the reason that no chargesheet was served on him. He further contends that the Enquiry Officer had appeared before the Labour Court, who was Baljit Singh as MW-1. He had stated in his cross- examination that he had not put any question to the Workman as to “whether he has received the chargesheet or not”? He had not put any question as to “whether he admits the charges or not and other aspects as well"? which are the basic requirement for holding a fair and proper inquiry. He had further admitted that even the list of witnesses to be examined against the Workman was not given to him and one of the witnesses, namely, Babu Lal, Conductor, was not even mentioned in the list of witnesses as a witness. He on this basis contends that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, vide its Order dated 15.02.2000, is fully justified and, therefore, does not call for any interference. C.W.P. No. 5675 of 2002 (O/M). -3- As regards the Award dated 16.01.2001, counsel for the Workman submits that after passing of the Order dated 15.02.2000 (Annexure- P-8), the Management had led no evidence before the Labour Court in support of the charges levelled against the Workman. The evidence, which had been earlier led by the Management before the Labour Court, had been duly considered by it and a perusal thereof would show that there is nothing on record, which would prove the charges against the Workman. In view of the fact that there is no evidence, which would prove the allegation against the Workman, the Award dated 16.01.2001 (Annexure-P-9) passed by the Labour Court, is fully justified and does not call for any interference. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned Order dated 15.02.2000 (Annexure-P-8) and Award dated 16.01.2001 (Annexure-P-9). MW-1 Baljit Singh, Store Purchase Officer, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. He deposed before the Labour Court that he had held the inquiry against Workman. In his cross-examination he has stated that he had not put any question to the Workman on the date when the inquiry started or thereafter that “whether he received chargesheet or not”? He had not put a question that “whether he admits the charges or not”? and “whether he wanted to seek help of a co-worker in his defence”? He admitted that he had not recorded the statement of Inspector Ram Kumar, who was the complainant. Conductor Babu Lal, who was examined as a witness during the inquiry was not even mentioned as a witness in the list of witnesses, which was also not supplied to the Workman. He also admitted that neither the Department produced medical report about consumption of liquor in inquiry nor produced any proof in support of this. All this shows that the inquiry proceedings were held in total violation of the principle of natural justice and even the statutory C.W.P. No. 5675 of 2002 (O/M). -4- rules governing the inquiry proceedings. The Order dated 15.02.2000 (Annexure-P-8), passed by the Labour Court thus, cannot be faulted with and is accordingly upheld. As regards the Award dated 16.01.2001 (Annexure-P-9), it is conceded by counsel for the Management that no fresh evidence after passing of the Order dated 15.02.2000 (Annexure-P-8) was adduced by the Management. His contention is that the evidence earlier recorded on behalf of the Management was required to be taken into consideration by the Labour Court and if still the Court comes to a conclusion that the charges as levelled against the Workman were not proved, the Court could have granted the relief, which had been granted to him. I have with the able assistance of counsel for the parties gone through the statements of Baljit Singh/MW-1 and Hans Raj/MW-2. These are the two witnesses, who were produced by the Management before the Labour Court. I have earlier discussed the statement of Baljit Singh/MW-1, which pertains to his cross-examination. He had categorically admitted that the complainant Inspector Ram Kumar was not examined during the inquiry proceedings. Secondly, the Department did not produce any medical report about consumption of liquor in the inquiry nor produced any proof in support of this allegation. Since the material witnesses were neither examined during the inquiry proceedings nor were they produced before the Labour Court by the Management, the charges against the Workman are not prove. The findings, thus, recorded by the Labour Court are justified and in accordance with law. There is no illegality in the Award dated 16.01.2001 (Annexure-P- 8), passed by the Labour Court, which would call for any interference by this Court. C.W.P. No. 5675 of 2002 (O/M). -5- In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 11, 2010. sjks.