IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13510 of 2008. Date of Decision : March 17, 2009. Gurmeet Singh. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Managing Director, C.O.N.F.E.D., Sector-22-B, Chandigarh, and others. ...... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for the respondents No. 1 and 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 18.03.2008 (Annexure-P-5), vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the services of the petitioner-workman were terminated by the respondent-management on the ground that an F.I.R. No. 129 under Section 408 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner-workman on 21.03.1987. He contends that on the basis of the said F.I.R., the trial was held and the petitioner-workman was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, vide its order dated 16.11.1988. He contends that once the basis for termination of services of the petitioner-workman that was the registration of the F.I.R. has lost its relevance when he has been acquitted by the Court after a proper trial, vide C.W.P. No. 13510 of 2008. its order dated 16.11.1988, the petitioner-workman is entitled to reinstatement in service. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents-management submits that the basis for termination of services of the petitioner-workman was not the registration of F.I.R. He contends that a proper departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner-workman wherein the petitioner- workman had participated in the inquiry proceedings and after Enquiry Officer found him guilty against the charges, the services of the petitioner- workman were dispensed with in accordance with statutory rules governing the service. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned award. Perusal of the award would clearly show that overwhelming evidence has been produced by the respondent-management to show that a proper inquiry as per the procedure prescribed under the statutory rules governing the service was held wherein the petitioner-workman had participated in the inquiry proceedings. The Labour Court has on going through the proceedings given a categoric finding that the inquiry proceedings were in accordance with principle of nature justice and there is no violation of statutory rules governing the said inquiry proceedings. Further, the Labour Court has also gone into the fact with regard to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and has on that basis come to a categoric decision that it is based on evidence produced by the respondent- management before the Enquiry Officer. Merely because the petitioner- workman has been acquitted in criminal proceeding, would not entitle the petitioner-workman to reinstatement in service. When a proper departmental -2- C.W.P. No. 13510 of 2008. proceeding has been held and in that proceeding, the petitioner-workman has been held to be guilty, the punishing authority on having taken into consideration the findings on the basis of the departmental inquiry proceeded to pass appropriate order in accordance with statute governing the service, no interference by the Court is called for. On consideration of these factors, the Labour Court has answered the reference against the petitioner- workman holding that the order of termination of service of the petitioner- workman was just and in accordance with law. No illegality has been pointed out in the impugned award dated 18.03.2008 (Annexure-P-5) which would call for any interference by this Court. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 17, 2009. sjks. -3-