IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No.297 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:3.7.2009 Municipal Committee Ahmedgarh ......Appellant Vs. Rajinder Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Gurinder Singh Atariwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. Delay condoned. Heard on merits. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by judgment of the learned Single Judge setting aside termination of service of respondent No.1. 3. Respondent No.1 was employed as a peon with the appellant and had worked for about 11 years. On 4.7.1983 his services were terminated without holding any inquiry. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that workman had confessed his guilt which was clear from the report of the Superintendent Ex.M-14 and since he used to remain absent from duty and had misappropriated the amount which was established from the statement of Vinod Kumar MW-1 and documents Ex.M2 to Ex.M5, he was not entitled to reinstatement. 4. The workman filed a writ petition in this Court which was heard by learned Single Judge and was allowed. Learned Single Judge held that since the workman was regular employee, termination of his services on account of misconduct could not be justified without following mandatory procedure laid down under Section 45 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short, “the Act”). Accordingly, the workman was directed to be L.P.A.No.297 of 2008 -2- reinstated with continuity of service. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that even though provisions of Section 45 of the Act were not followed, there was sufficient material to justify the order of termination, as rightly held by the Labour Court. The workman had confessed his guilt of being absent and of misappropriation of amount. 7. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that holding of inquiry was mandatory and in absence thereof, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed reinstatement with continuity of service and no interference is called for, particularly when there is no direction for payment of any back wages. 8. It is well settled that termination of a regular employee without following principles of natural justice is not permissible (Delhi Transport Corporation vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress and others AIR 1991 SC 101). Section 45 of the Act clearly lays down the requirement of opportunity being given before passing an order of dismissal. No doubt, there can exception to this rule where charge itself is admitted but at least charge- sheet had to be served. We are conscious that where no enquiry is held, the management may lead evidence and prove the charge. (See Punjab National Bank Limited Vs. Its workmen AIR 1960 SC 160, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company vs. Ludh Budh Singh 1972 (1) SCC 595 and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Smt. Lakshmideviamma and Company AIR 2001SC 2090). In the present case, the management has not followed that course. L.P.A.No.297 of 2008 -2- Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 03, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No L.P.A.No.297 of 2008 -2-