IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.5709 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 24.02.2010 Balwinder Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar and ors. ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Bikramjit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Geeta Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside the impugned Award dated 4.2.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Labour Court vide which the reference so made on a demand raised by the petitioner-workman, has been answered against him, holding him entitled to no benefit. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the services of the petitioner were terminated after holding a departmental enquiry in which the petitioner was associated, is incorrect as no enquiry, in which the petitioner was associated, was held by the Management before passing the order of dismissal which was impugned by him before the Labour Court, for which reference was made. This contention he raised, relying upon the statement of cross-examination of MW-1 Darshan Singh dated 10.2.2004 ( Annexure P-7) wherein the Management witness has categorically stated in his cross-examination that the petitioner was not associated with the enquiry held by him. C.W.P.No.5709 of 2009 -2- Counsel for the petitioner, on this basis, submits that the enquiry on the basis of which the petitioner was dismissed from service, cannot be made the basis for terminating the services of the workman being not in accordance with law. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 26.2.2000, reply to which was filed by the petitioner on 10.7.2000. The disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply filed by the petitioner, appointed Darshan Singh, Executive Engineer, as Inquiry officer on 10.8.2000. The Inquiry Officer visited the office at Sub Division, Kairon and submitted his report on 16.8.2000 and the order of dismissal was passed by the Competent Authority on 17.8.2000. She, on this basis, submits that the order dismissing the petitioner from service is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The Inquiry Officer MW-1 Darshan Singh, Executive Engineer, Enforcement No.1, PSEB, Amritsar, who was appointed by the punishing authority vide order dated 10.8.2000 appeared as a witness before the Labour Court. His statement and cross-examination have been placed on record as Annexure P-7. A perusal of the cross-examination of Inquiry Officer Darshan Singh (MW-1) leaves no manner of doubt that neither the petitioner was associated with the enquiry nor were any documents put to him in any manner which would fulfil the requirement of the enquiry being in accordance with the statutory rules governing the service. Even the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. That being so, the C.W.P.No.5709 of 2009 -3- enquiry report dated 16.8.2000 which has been submitted by Sh.Darshan Singh, Inquiry Officer, cannot be said to be in accordance with law and, thus, cannot be made the basis for passing the order of dismissal against the petitioner, which is stated to be dated 17.8.2000. The findings, thus, recorded by the Labour Court vide its Award dated 4.2.2009 (Annexure P- 6) that the dismissal of the petitioner from service after holding an enquiry is in accordance with law, cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned Award deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the allegations which have been made against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be duly served in case liberty is granted to the respondent-Management to hold a fresh enquiry against the workman in which he would be given full liberty to defend himself. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the Management, if it so decides to proceed departmentally against the petitioner and in case, it comes to a conclusion that the allegations made against the petitioner cannot be substantiated, the petitioner shall be held entitled to all consequential benefits. The enquiry, if any, to be initiated shall be started within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the workman cooperates with the enquiry, the same shall be concluded within a period of four months thereafter. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. February 24, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE