CWP No.2983 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2983 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on : 17-02-2011 M/S Continental Profiles Ltd. ....Petitioners VERSUS Presiding Officer and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioners impugn the award dated 1.9.2010. The services of the respondent-workman were terminated by the petitioners on the allegations that he had misbehaved and attempted to assault a senior Company official when the said officer tried to inspect his works. The respondent-workman had denied the allegations. The chargesheet was issued on 5.4.2003 and another statement of allegation was served upon the respondent on 11.4.2003 which was replied to by the said workman on the same date and on 11.4.2003 the petitioners issued a notice proposing to discharge the services of the respondent-workman which was given effect to on 16.4.2003 by giving a notice of one month. The respondent raised an industrial dispute and the Tribunal held that the termination of the said workman was not proper and ordered his reinstatement alongwith back wages. While impugning the said award, learned counsel for the CWP No.2983 of 2011 (O&M) 2 petitioners raised two fold contentions; (i) that according to the letter of appointment the respondent-workman's age of superannuation was 55 years and on the date of passing of the award, the said workman having attained that age, there was no question of his reinstatement; and (ii) that the respondent-workman failed to plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period he was out of job and was thus not entitled to back wages. I have considered the contentions raised before this Court. The petitioner could not justifiably find any fault in the observations made by the Tribunal regarding the finding that the services of the respondent- workman were terminated illegally. No inquiry was held as was the pleaded case of the petitioners as well and only the justification which has been sought to be projected before this Court is that it was not feasible to hold an inquiry which fact has also not been fortified from any circumstances on record. There is no material from where it can be inferred that the said workman was a habitual or a repeated defaulter and was an element who was threat to the peace and security of the employees and officers of the Company. That being so, the termination of the respondent-workman in a manner in which it has been done only speaks of the arbitrariness on the part of the petitioners. Once the finding on this issue is held to be correct then there is no reason why the respondent-workman should not have been ordered to be reinstated with complete back wages. In the given set of circumstances, when the action of the petitioner in terminating the services of the respondent-workman only shows the highhandedness, I am of the considered opinion that CWP No.2983 of 2011 (O&M) 3 reinstatement with complete back wages is justifiable. However, it is to be kept in the mind that the petitioner having attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, he is to be held be entitled to all the monetary consequences that entail from setting aside the order of termination. I am also not enamoured of the plea that simply because the respondent has failed to plead that he was not gainfully employed then he should not be given back wages. It is always the discretion of the Court to evaluate the effect of the action of termination of a workman and in the circumstances and the manner in which it has been done and then proceed to award the relief which such a workman may be entitled to in the given set of circumstances. Having found that the petitioner had arbitrarily terminated the services of the respondent without any cogent material on record and without following due process of law, the impugned award does not suffer from any infirmity and the same is upheld. Hence, the instant petition is held to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. February 17 , 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge