C.W.P.No.18745 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.18745 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 30.03.2009 The Haryana Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd., Rohtak ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Rohtak and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Ramesh Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the respondent. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 22.8.2008 (Annexure P-15) passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak, whereby termination order of respondent No.2-workman has been set aside and the penalty awarded to respondent No.2 has been modified and substituted to a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect by reinstating respondent No.2 on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 4.1.1994. Counsel for the petitioner contends that once the Court has given a specific finding with regard to the enquiry proceedings being in accordance with law and finding no illegality in the same, the Labour Court cannot thereafter while deciding the issues, reopen the same and subsequently decide the same against the Management which has been done C.W.P.No.18745 of 2008 -2- in the present case. He contends that the evidence which has been led cannot be looked into. He contends that the Labour Court has in its award accepted that there was negligence on the part of the employee in informing and intimating the employer with regard to his illness and having held so, the order of termination cannot be faulted with and, therefore, the award cannot be sustained. Counsel for the petitioner contends that no issue was framed with regard to the back wages but still the Labour Court has granted the workman 50% back wages from the date of demand notice. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that it is correct that the issue with regard to enquiry proceedings being in accordance with law was decided by the Labour Court against the workman holding it to be in accordance with law. However, the said order was challenged by the workman by preferring Civil Revision No.4494 of 2004 before the High Court wherein, after hearing the parties, this Court was pleased to observe that in case the final award is passed against the workman, it would be open to him to challenge the impugned order. On this basis, he contends that since the petitioners are now challenging, in these proceedings, the observations of the Labour Court with regard to the evidence led by the workman while the preliminary issue was decided, it would be open to him to address arguments on this aspect. He, on the basis of the evidence produced before the Labour Court, contends that it has clearly come on record that the witnesses so called by the Inquiry Officer have come up before the Labour Court and stated that no statements were recorded and they were asked to sign the papers in the office of the Inquiry Officer. They have further come up and stated that no questions were put to them. He, on this basis, contends that while deciding the issue with regard C.W.P.No.18745 of 2008 -3- to the justifiability of the order of termination, it was open to the Labour Court to look into the evidence which has been produced by the parties for coming to a conclusion with regard to the illegality of the order of termination. He further contends that it was open to the workman to challenge the findings of the Inquiry Officer by leading evidence before the Labour Court and having done so, the workman has requested the Labour Court for calling the relevant records, to be produced by the Management, but the Management failed to produce the same. These documents were the relevant records which would have proved negligence against the workman which is attributed to him. Having failed to produce the records, an adverse inference drawn by the Labour Court is fully justified as the charges levelled against the workman have been held to be not proved against him. He further submits that as regards the illness of the workman because of which he was absent from duty, overwhelming evidence has been produced by the workman showing the nature of injuries, his admission in PGI Rohtak and thereafter his treatment at Adarsh Nursing Home, Delhi. These documents have not been disputed as they were fully proved before the Labour Court. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court having exercised its powers under Section 11-A of the Act with regard to the quantum of punishment, has in its order justified the modification of the punishment. He, therefore, contends that the award passed by the Labour Court is in accordance with law which 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 with their able assistance. The contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner at the first blush may appear to be very C.W.P.No.18745 of 2008 -4- attractive but in the light of the fact that it was open to the workman to challenge the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer before the Labour Court as the proceedings were held ex parte against him, the evidence which has been led by the workman before the Labour Court could not be ignored. The statements of the witnesses before the Labour Court when taken into consideration go beyond doubt to show that during the enquiry proceedings, the witnesses had simply signed the documents without looking into the contents thereof and no question whatsoever was put to them. That being the position, the charges as levelled against the workman have not been proved before the Labour Court. The records which were relevant and on which reliance was placed by the Management for holding the workman guilty, when called for by the Labour Court were not produced. The best evidence available with the Management having been withheld from the Court, the findings with regard to non-proving of the charge of negligence against the workman cannot be interfered with. The only aspect left out to be looked into is with regard to the allegation of wilfull absence on the part of the workman. The evidence which has been produced on record in the form of OPD Card of PGI Rohtak and thereafter the treatment at Adarsh Nursing Home, Raja Garden, New Delhi, goes beyond doubt to prove that indeed the workman was suffering from injuries in the form of fracture of rib etc. The medical reports and certificates submitted by the workman clearly showed the nature of injuries and the details of the medical treatment which was given to the workman. That being so, the Labour Court while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Act has exercised its discretion with regard to the aspect whether the negligence of the workman with regard to intimation to the C.W.P.No.18745 of 2008 -5- Management of his absence on account of illness has come to a conclusion that the punishment of termination was in excess to the misconduct attributed and proved against the workman. The discretion has been exercised by the Labour Court in a justifiable manner by assigning reasons for such exercise of its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act which do not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its powers in writ jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be said to contain any illegality which would call for interference by this Court. The present writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. March 30, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No