IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14046 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.08.2009 M/s Kegg Farms Private Limited …Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Labour Court's award directing reinstatement and partial back wages of a Statician-Genetics, is challenged by the management before this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he had been employed to collect, collate, interpret and present genetical data in a supervisory grade in the organization and when it came to the information of the management that he was acting against the interest of the management by leaking of confidential information, order of termination was issued on 09.04.1981 by an offer to pay one month's wages in lieu of a notice as provided under clause 14 of the terms of employment. The learned counsel would submit that the Labour Court had erred in finding the termination to be bad and that the case of loss of confidence in a sensitive post that he was occupying, was not properly appreciated. Civil Writ Petition No.14046 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - 2. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Air India Corporation, Bombay Versus V.A. Rabello and another-AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1343, that dealt with the case of an employee, who was alleged to have been misbehaved with some Air Hostesses and done acts which eroded the confidence of the Corporation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the termination in terms of regulation that provided for a right to terminate without reason as justified in the given circumstances and held that termination could not be termed as mala fide and would not be subjected to review by industrial adjudication. The learned counsel also refers to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in The workmen of Sudder Office, Cinnamara Versus Management of Sudder Office and another-(1972) 4 Supreme Court Cases 746, that dealt with the case of termination of services on the ground of loss of confidence that was sought to be established through departmental enquiry. In Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. Versus Ajay Kumar-(2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 579, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found in the given case that the reasons for dispensing with enquiry was itself not found to be adequate but still having regard to the long passage of time and loss of confidence in the delinquent, the Hon'ble Court found that there was no scope for reinstatement. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the management would respond to the contention by pointing out that loss of confidence cannot be a matter of inference without any basis and a mere unilateral Civil Writ Petition No.14046 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 - statement without any form of proof or any enquiry preceding termination cannot avail to a management to justify the termination. The learned counsel refers to the findings of the Labour Court which dealt with the issue at length where it was elicited through the management witnesses that although letter of termination was a simpliciter discharge, the decision was taken only on account of alleged parting of secret information. The said suspicion was subject of challenge during the course of enquiry and the Labour Court found that no evidence was forthcoming and the witnesses who ought to have known the same were not examined. The Labour Court also found that even the witnesses who were examined could not say whether there was any secret codes nor could the witnesses give the names of any particular person to whom the codes were purported to have been revealed by the workman. With evidence bereft of all details and even the subjective statement of lack of confidence having no basis, the Labour Court was constrained to direct reinstatement finding the termination to be bad. 4. While on the issue of back wages, the Labour Court found that there was evidence that the workman was running a tea stall and it could not be stated that he was unemployed after his discharge, therefore directed the back wages to be paid only from 25.04.1988 and not from the time when he was dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the workman would also submit that the termination itself was mala fide since he was instrumental in forming a trade union and registering the same. The trade union was registered on 08.04.1981 and the termination took place the following day. The immediate proximity of Civil Writ Petition No.14046 of 1998 (O&M) - 4 - the registration of the union and the termination according to him was a fact positive of the mala fides of the management. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the workman also referred to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Chandu Lal Versus Management of M/s Pan American World Airways Inc.-(1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 727, that lack of confidence cannot be merely a matter of inference with no details, and holding of a domestic enquiry shall be a condition precedent in order that termination is effected on the ground that there is lack of confidence. 6. The Labour Court has considered all that were relevant. An order of mere termination after giving one month's notice has been characterized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as King Henry-VIII principle that cannot fit him in the modern industrial jurisprudence that sets down inter alia, a fair procedure through Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Labour Court. I am informed that the workman was due for retirement in the year 2005 and the question of reinstatement therefore does not arise. The back wages that had been ordered by the Labour Court will therefore accrue only till the date when he would have been superannuated if he had not been terminated from service. Subject to this modification, the writ petition is disposed of. Needless to say that the workman shall also be entitled to all the retiral benefits. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 04.08.2009 sanjeev