C.W.P. No.676 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.676 of 1988 Date of Decision:09.09.2008 Major Singh .....Petitioner Vs. The Sumundari Roadways, Pvt. Ltd., Muktsar and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Major Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned award dated 2.11.1987 (Annexure P.1) The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner- workman along with three other workmen had intercepted a bus of the respondent- Management on 16.1.1984 on Muktsar-Ferozepur route and dragged out the driver and conductor of the bus and gave severe beatings to them besides damaging the bus and harassing the passengers and also absented himself from duty with effect from the said date. The petitioner was charge-sheeted. In the inquiry report, it was held that all the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet were fully proved and his services were terminated. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the petitioner served demand notice. The dispute was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda. The following issues were framed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court:- “(i) Whether the order of termination of the service of the C.W.P. No.676 of 1988 -2- workman is justified? (ii) Relief. After recording evidence and hearing the representatives of the parties, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court held that “the workman is not entitled to reinstatement but compensation in lieu of wrongful dismissal which I assess at Rs.7500/- with no order as to costs.” Feeling aggrieved therewith, the petitioner- workman has filed this petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent- Sumundari Roadways Private Limited, Muktsar through its General Manager. Ms. Deepinder Kaur appearing on behalf of the petitioner agitated at the bar that one Kulwinder Singh, driver of the respondent- Management was also terminated along with the petitioner on the ground that he had indulged in the acts of vandalism along with the petitioner, Hamir Singh and Randhir Singh and he (Kulwinder singh) also raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bathinda- respondent, who has reinstated Kulwinder Singh vide award dated 9.6.1987 Annexure P.2 and thus on applying the rule of parity, the petitioner is also liable to be reinstated. She further pressed into service that the services of the petitioner were terminated without any fair and proper inquiry, though he had served with the respondent- Management for ten years and the order of termination of his services amount to retrenchment but nonetheless retrenchment compensation has not been paid. She has sought to place abundant reliance upon the observations made by the Apex Court in re: Mohan Lal v. The Management of M/s Bharat Electronics Limited, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1253, wherein it has been held as C.W.P. No.676 of 1988 -3- under:- “Where the termination is illegal especially where there is an ineffective order of retrenchment, there is neither termination nor cessation of service and a declaration follows that the workman concerned continues to be in service with all consequential benefits, namely back wages in full and other benefits.” On giving a thoughtful consideration to these submissions, I am unable to persuade myself to agree therewith for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The Labour Court has observed that “the workman having been dismissed without fair, proper inquiry, without notice and compensation envisaged in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the termination of his services is illegal.” In the relief clause of the impugned award, the learned Labour Court has observed that “The workman along with three others had intercepted bus No.PBF:425 of the respondent on 16.1.84 when it was proceeding on route to Ferozepur from Muktsar, had pulled out Gurdeep Singh conductor and Balwinder Singh driver, had caused them injuries, had caused panic and inconvenience to the passengers some of whom returned the tickets and had damaged the window panes of the bus, leading to the registration of a criminal case in which they were arrested. The allegations were made in the written statement (and the dismissal order) and were not specifically denied in the rejoinder although the workman had vaguely pleaded that “a false case was got registered against the workman on 16.1.84.” The management also suspects on a reasonable ground that the workman had committed embezzlement of its revenue. With these credentials, the workman cannot in any opinion render C.W.P. No.676 of 1988 -4- any meaningful service for the management and must not therefore be reinstated.” To me, it appears that no fault can be found with these observations. In re: Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. v. Ghanshyam Sharma, 2002(3), Recent Services Judgments 77, the respondent was employed as a Conductor by the appellant. On more than one occasion, he was punished having been charge-sheeted on the ground of not issuing the tickets to the passengers. He was found carrying 23-1/2 passengers without tickets and an inquiry was conducted and he was removed from service. The Labour Court held that respondent is guilty of misconduct of carrying 23-1/2 passengers without tickets but ordered reinstatement with continuity of service without back-wages. The Apex Court ruled that “in cases like the present, order of dismissal should not be set aside. It will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, as has been reflected in the impugned award and reproduced above, the petitioner along with others indulged into vandalism and caused injuries to the driver as well as conductor of the bus which created panic amongst the passengers who had to run away. So much so, even FIR was got registered. Their such conduct proprio-vigore is enough to hold that they were not fit to be retained in service and sequelly, the order of termination could not be set aside. Coming to Annexure P.2, the award dated 9.6.1987 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bathinda holding that the workman (referring to Kulwinder Singh) is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, it is pertinent to point here that it was found in Kulwinder Singh's case that his services were terminated on the ground of serious misconduct C.W.P. No.676 of 1988 -5- but without holding a domestic inquiry though such inquiry had admittedly been held in the present case. This is the distinguishing feature. That being so, on the basis of Annexure P.2, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner- workman to contend that the rule of parity should be applied to his case. Ostensibly, the law by way of evolution has undergone metamorphosis after 1981. As such, the petitioner cannot derive any mileage from the observations rendered in re: Mohan Lal (supra). In the ultimate analysis, it follows that the impugned award does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity or perversity or material irregularity calling for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. September 09, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No