IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.285 of 2008 and L.P.A.NO.70 of 2008 DATE OF ORDER: 19.3.2008 Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd ....Petitioner(s) through Shri Gobind Goel, Advocate. Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another .....Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijender Jain, Chief Justice. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh, Judge. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE C.M.No.285 of 2008 It is stated in the application that against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Management had filed Special Leave Petition directly in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court observed that against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, Intra Court appeal is maintainable and thus while granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court within 30 days from the date of order, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of. It was also noticed in the order that the counsel appearing before that Court, on instructions from the respondent, stated that the respondent shall not raise the question of limitation. In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and concession extended by the learned counsel for the respondent, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and hear the same on merits today itself. Application stands disposed of. L.P.A.No.70 of 2008 Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on 20.9.2006, present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited. L.P.A.No.70 of 2008 #2# The appellant had challenged the award dated 2.3.1989 made by the Labour Court, Bathinda whereby reference was answered in favour of the respondent-workman. Mr. Gobind Goel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the power exercised by the learned Single Judge as well as the Labour Court is beyond the jurisdiction, which has been given under Section 11-A of the Act and also against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. He further contended that only in cases, where the punishment awarded is totally disproportionate to the charge or such punishment shocks the conscious of the Court, then the finding could be interfered by the Court. He further contends that while interfering with the order of punishment, the Court ought to have taken into account the conduct of the delinquent employee and the other mitigating circumstances, which weighed with the punishing authority. Mr. Goel further argued that though in the charge sheet, shortage was quantified to the tune of Rs.1,09,914/- but on inquiry, the same was found to be Rs.30,222/-, therefore, in any case, there was shortage and on that account, learned Single Judge ought not to have affirmed the award of the Labour Court. With regard to the argument raised by Mr. Goel that “in any case, there was shortage of Rs.30,222/-, we put a query to him as to under what circumstances, Mr. H.S. Walia, Sr. Branch Officer, who was overall supervisor and was also served the same charge sheet, was let off with minor penalty of censure. Mr. Gobind Goel replied to our query saying that the charge, which was issued to Mr. Walia, was only with regard to lack of supervision. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The workman has not been held guilty of defalcation and shortage detected. It has rightly been observed in the impugned order that shortage could have been either on account of negligence or by virtue of reduction of moisture content or on account of some problem with regard to weightage of the goods at one stage or the other. According to Mr. Gobind Goel, the charge, which was issued to Shri Walia, was only with regard to lack of supervision. We are not in the agreement with the reply given by Mr. Goel. L.P.A.No.70 of 2008 #3# A person, who is appointed by the authorities on a higher rank and gets more salary, cannot be simply let off by saying that he was a mere supervisor. He being overall incharge is as much guilty of the charge as was workman-respondent herein. Workman could not be treated differently than the Supervisor. This was another reason, which persuaded the learned Single Judge to come to the conclusion that the award passed by the Labour Court in favour of the workman substituting the punishment of removal from service with censure, was perfectly legal. Moreover, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Labour Court while setting aside the dismissal order of the workman granted him back wages. Judging from any angle, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Dismissed. ( VIJENDER JAIN ) CHIEF JUSTICE March 19, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj ` JUDGE