LPA No. 806 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 806 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision 15 .7.2010 CCS Haryana Agricultural University Hisar ... Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr.Vijay Pal ,Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed by the management under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 31.8.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 12733 of 2000. The learned Single Judge has upheld the award of the Labour Court reinstating the workman- respondent with 50% back wages. The appellant- management terminated the services of the workman-respondent after alleged domestic enquiry and a copy thereof was not furnished to her. Before the Labour Court, the appellant- management did not bring on record any enquiry report nor the enquiry officer was examined. It has not even availed the provisions of Section 11 A asking the Labour Court to adduce evidence in support of the charges against workman- respondent. Accordingly, the workman succeded before the Labour Court as it was found that no document was supplied and there was patent violation of principles of natural justice. The enquiry was held to be bad. Even before the Labour Court, the appellant- management did not bring on record any LPA No. 806 of 2010(O&M) 2 evidence to meet the case set out by the workman-respondent. The Labour Court has also recorded a categorical finding that termination of services of the workman-respondent was unfair labour practice and directed her reinstatement. The learned Single Judge after considering the contention of the appellant- management has upheld the award of the Labour Court. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed. After hearing the learned counsel we are of the view that no case is made out for interference in this Appeal. Once the enquiry has been found to be farcical, there is no reason for us to doubt the correctness of the findings recorded by the Labour Court and then by the learned Single Judge. The appellant- management was under an obligation to supply all the documents and comply with the principles of natural justice in holding the enquiry against its workman. Moreover, an opportunity to adduce evidence under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for holding enquiry afresh before the Labour Court has also not been availed by the appellant- management. Therefore, we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Labour Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The appeal does not merit admission and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (A. N. Jindal ) 15.7.2010 Judge okg