LPA No. 726 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 726 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.01.2011 M/s The Maruti Employees Co-OP. House Building Society Ltd. ......APPELLANT VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurgaon and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. *** RANJAN GOGOI, ACJ (Oral) Delay in filing as well as refiling the appeal is condoned. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 31.08.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition i.e. CWP No. 13639 of 2000 filed by the appellant-Management against an Award by which the concerned workman was awarded the relief of reinstatement with back wages. 2. At the outset, it has to be noticed that the concerned workman is no more and if at all his legal representatives would be entitled to the relief of back wages. LPA No. 726 of 2010 (O&M) 2 3. The termination of the workman was on the ground that he had misplaced a proceeding book. A show cause notice was issued, to which the workman filed a reply stating that he had kept the proceeding book with him on the instructions of one Ajit Singh . Considering the said reply of the workman containing the admission of the charge, the termination order was passed without holding any enquiry. 4. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition took the view that in the facts of the case, particularly as the admission of the workman was qualified, an enquiry should have been held. Accordingly, the Award of the learned Labour Court was affirmed. 5. Though the sheet anchor of the case of the Management is the reply of the workman containing the alleged admission, a copy of the same has not been enclosed with the memo of appeal. We have, however, called upon the learned counsel to place before us the said reply of the workman, which has been so done. We have perused the reply in original, which would indicate that the learned Single Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that the admission of the workman was qualified one. 6. What were the circumstances in which the workman acted upon the dictates of Ajit Singh to hide the proceeding book; whether any threat or intimidation has been meted out to him and what were the other compulsions of the workman to so act, could have only been unraveled in an enquiry proceeding. No enquiry having been held, we are of the view that the termination of the workman was wholly unjustified and the Award of the Labour Court and the order of the learned Single Judge are correct in law. 7. As the workman has died during the pendency of the proceedings, naturally the relief that would survive in the present appeal would be one of back wages which would go to the legal heirs of the LPA No. 726 of 2010 (O&M) 3 deceased workman. This amount be paid within a period of two months'. 8. We are also inclined to arrive at a conclusion that the Management has filed this Letters Patent Appeal on frivolous and untenable grounds. The action of the Management in filing the appeal is, therefore, being construed as an attempt to harass the legal heirs of the deceased workman. We are, therefore, of the view that the dismissal of this appeal should entail payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/- to the legal heirs of the workman within the aforesaid period of two months'. Consequently the L.P.A. is dismissed with costs as quantified above. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE January 12, 2011 pj