IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : March 27, 2009. C.W.P. No. 5918 of 1992 . Braham Parshad. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, and another. ..... Respondents. C.W.P. No. 6232 of 1992. The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, and another. ..... Respondents. C.W.P. No. 15347 of 1992. Baljit Singh. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, and others. ..... Respondents. C.W.P. No. 6240 of 1992 . The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, and another. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner/respondent. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner/respondent. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). By this order, I propose to decide C.W.P. Nos. 5918 of 1992, preferred by the workman-Braham Parshad, wherein the challenge is to the C.W.P. No. 5918 of 1992 and others.. award dated 18.11.1991, passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, and in C.W.P. No. 6240 of 1992, this very award has been challenged by the management. Similarly, in C.W.P. No. 15347 of 1992, the workman-Baljit Singh, has challenged the award dated 18.11.1991, passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, and this very award is challenged by the management in C.W.P. No. 6232 of 1992. The facts in these cases are similar as the instance on the basis of which action was taken against the workmen, was one. The allegations against the workmen were that during a surprise checking of the vehicle in which milk was being transported by Shri Dalip Singh and Shri Surinder Kumar Goel, 15 bottles filled with water and five bottles filled with milk but having loose caps were detected in a crate in the truck. Three workers were on duty on the truck from where this crate was found. These five bottles of milk with loose caps were adulterated with water. With this crate containing 15 bottles of water and 5 bottles of milk was being shifted from the truck to be loaded on the jeep, so that this could be tested in the laboratory, one Mohinder Singh forcibly threw the crate on the road with an intention to break the entire lot of the bottles. On this, the checking staff, namely, Shri Dalip Singh and Shri Surinder Kumar Goel took Mohinder Singh, temporary worker, Braham Parshad, D.M.C.C., and Jagan Nath, temporary worker, to the house of Shri N.K. Puri, Deputy Manager (Marketing), and reported the whole thing to him. These persons admitted in the presence of Shri N.K. Puri that they have adulterated all the five bottles with water. On the basis of admission, a chargesheet was issued to the workmen and on the basis of evidence led by the parties, the workmen were held guilty of the charges levelled against them. On the basis of this inquiry report, wherein the proved charges were against them, the workmen -2- C.W.P. No. 5918 of 1992 and others.. were dismissed from service. A demand notice was served by the workmen on the basis of which reference was made by the appropriate Government, leading to the passing of the impugned awards. In these awards, the Labour Court treated the issue with regard to inquiry being fair and proper as the first issue and after going through the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, gave a finding that the inquiry was held in accordance with law. However, exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed on the workmen on the basis of mis-conduct proved against them, was too harsh, the Labour Court set aside the order of termination and held that Shri Braham Parshad, who was drawing pay of Rs. 850/- per month at the time of termination of his service, shall be reduced by way of punishment to the extent of Rs. 100/- per month, holding him entitled to receive Rs. 750/- as pay on his reinstatement. He shall also not be entitled to back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. In the case of Baljit Singh, order of termination was set aside and instead the pay of the workman, which was Rs. 501/- per month at the time of termination of his service, shall be reduced by way of punishment to the extent of Rs. 100/- holding him entitled to receive Rs. 401/- per month as his wages from the date of his reinstatement. No back wages was granted to him from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. It is these awards dated 18.11.1991 which are being challenged both by the workmen as well as the management. Apart from the merit of the case, counsel for the workman has put forth his submission that by the impugned award although the workmen have been reinstated but they have been granted fixed salary for all times to come. He contends that the workman was before his -3- C.W.P. No. 5918 of 1992 and others.. termination drawing salary as per the pay scales granted by the Punjab Government. This he submits is unfair and unjustified. On the other hand, counsel for the management contends that once the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the inquiry held against the workman was in accordance with law and no fault thereof was found during the inquiry proceedings as the workman had fully participated in the inquiry proceedings, the Labour Court should not have interfered with the punishment granted by the management. The discretion applied by the disciplinary authority, cannot be interfered with by the Labour Court and it cannot take a lenient view by giving minor punishment. Such interference is not permissible. He relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Versus Mohan Lal Gupta and others, 2000 (9) S.C.C. 521. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Counsel for the management when put a question by this Court as to whether the workman has been reinstated in service, categorically accepts this factual aspect. With regard to Shri Braham Parshad, he submits that this workman is still continuing with the management and on further been asked, he states that there is no complaint whatsoever against him. However, with regard to Baljit Singh, he submits that the workman was reinstated in service on 20.03.1992, however, the workman abandoned the job on 25.05.1992 and thereafter, his services were terminated, vide speaking order dated 25.01.1994. The said order has not been challenged by Shri Baljit Singh and the same is, thus, final. It would not be out of way to mention here that none has put in appearance on behalf of Shri Baljit Singh, petitioner in C.W.P. No. 15347 of 1992. -4- C.W.P. No. 5918 of 1992 and others.. Shri S.P. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner-Braham Parshad has taken me through the evidence led by the parties before the Labour Court. He has also taken me through the inquiry report as submitted by the Enquiry Officer, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure-P-2. He has vehemently argued that the inquiry proceeding was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice, therefore, findings recorded by the Labour Court on the issue whether the inquiry was just and proper, is not correct. I have given my thoughtful consideration made by the counsel but I am unable to accept the same. No fault can be said to have been committed by the Labour Court while coming to a conclusion with regard to the holding of departmental inquiry. Chargesheet has been issued, reply to the chargesheet has been given, a regular inquiry has been held wherein the workmen had fully participated. They have cross-examined the witnesses of the management and therefore, the principles of natural justice having been fully complied with, the inquiry was, thus, in consonance with law. Now, coming to the question of exercise of jurisdiction by the Labour Court while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while interfering with the punishment imposed on the workmen. Counsel for the management has submitted that the Court should not have interfered with the punishment granted by the management. His reliance on the judgment of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra), is of no help to him in the present case. The evidence which has been led by the parties and the records of the case, fully justifies the interference by the Labour Court while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The mis-conduct attributed to these two workmen, namely, Braham Parshad and Baljit Singh, are not where they -5- C.W.P. No. 5918 of 1992 and others.. have been attributed any overt act. The allegation with regard to throwing the crate of bottles, has been attributed to Shri Mohinder Singh who was instrumental in destroying the evidence and proof with regard to adulteration of the bottles. The workmen herein are only guilty of offence connivance in the mis-deed. At the time of termination of services, Braham Prashad had put in 13 years of service and there was nothing on the records to show that he had ever been held guilty for any mis-conduct. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was fully justified. Further, the discretion exercised by the Labour Court, cannot be said to be not in accordance with law. However, the order passed by the Labour Court to the extent that instead of pay which he was drawing at the time of termination, shall be reduced by way of punishment to the extent of Rs. 100/- and then fixing it at the reduced pay meaning thereby that for all times to come, the workmen would be entitled to that fixed amount of pay, cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that the workmen were entitled to the pay as per pay scales attached to the post on which they were appointed and were working. It cannot be said to be just and appropriate that the pay of the workmen reduced by Rs. 100/- per month and that amount the workmen be held entitled to received per month as his pay on his reinstatement for all times to come. Since, the workmen were being paid salary as per the pay scales applicable to the post on which they were working, it would be equitable and proper that stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, be treated as punishment for the mis-conduct of the workmen. The impugned awards passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, dated -6- C.W.P. No. 5918 of 1992 and others.. 18.11.1991, in these writ petitions, are modified to the extent that the order of termination is set aside and instead punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, is ordered. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 27, 2009. sjks. -7-