IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3076 of 2009 Date of decision:09.11.2009 Jarnail Singh ....Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others ...Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents 2 to 4. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1 By the impugned order dated 26.11.2007, the order of dismissal from service of the workman was upheld and the reference sought at the instance of the workman was rejected. It was an admitted case where the management had not constituted any independent enquiry but relied on a finding by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that the workman-driver had been negligent in driving the vehicle that resulted in death of two persons and injury to others, and also damage to the bus. The Labour Court held that it would be a mockery to proceed with an enquiry when there had been already a Tribunal's findings that the driver had been negligent while processing the claims of certain passengers and Civil Writ Petition No.3076 of 2009 - 2 - fastening the liability on the management on the basis of vicarious liability. 2. The degree of proof that is necessary before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for upholding the claim is totally distinct from a misconduct that has to be proved in order that the termination of service is effected. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaushnuma Begum Versus New India Assurance Company Limited-(2001) 2 SCC 9 , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Motor Vehicles Act being social welfare legislation, it shall be so construed as not to defeat the rights of lawful claimants of persons arising out of death and injury in motor accidents by looking for extracting standards of proof of negligence. The findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot supplant the procedural requirement which a management had perforce to undertake to be satisfied that there had been a misconduct. This issue has also been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana through General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Ambala Versus Sat Pal Sharma and another (Civil Writ Petition No.12577 of 2004) where the Bench had held as under :- “There can be no doubt, that it is not open to an employer to terminate the services of an employee on the basis of misconduct, unless a regular domestic enquiry is conducted against him, wherein the charges levelled against him are proved. It was not open to the petitioner Management to simply rely on the judgment rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, for the simple reason, that the petitioner Management itself had adopted the stance before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, that the accident on 29.9.1996 was not the result of the negligence of the respondent-workman. In the aforesaid view of the matter, unless an independent departmental Civil Writ Petition No.3076 of 2009 - 3 - enquiry was conducted against the respondent-workman wherein the charge of negligence was proved, the respondent-workman could not have been subjected to the punishment of dismissal from service.” 3. In my view, the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench will squarely govern the issue involved in the case. It shall however be open for the management to take appropriate action for departmental enquiry and the defence already taken before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shall not be taken as constituting any estoppel against the management. It shall be open to the workman to take up all the contentions to which he is lawfully entitled to. 4. The award of the Labour Court is, under the circumstances, set aside and the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. This is however subject to the liberty granted to the management as stated above. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be however no directions as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.11.2009 sanjeev