C.W.P. No.6588 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.6588 of 2002 Date of Decision: 26.11.2009 The State of Haryana through General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Faridabad .....Petitioner Versus Sh. Devi Sahai and another .......Respondents Present: Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the petitioner. Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. The award under challenge is a direction for reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% of back wages for the workman, who was a Conductor in Haryana Roadways. The charge against him was that on a surprise inspection conducted at the bus on 28.11.1988, it was found that he had collected money from some passengers but not issued tickets and some persons had been sitting there without being issued tickets or money not collected from them. The charge was again that the Conductor left the bus when the inspecting staff boarded the bus and the misconduct attributed to the workman was, therefore, C.W.P. No.6588 of 2002 -2- embezzlement and abandonment of duty from the bus. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges had been established on the basis of which the management terminated the service. Before the Labour Cout, the Enquiry Officer examined himself and marked the report and the documents before it. The workman had also examined himself to give his evidence. The Labour Court found that the enquiry had not been fair and proper and the inference was so made on its reasoning that no passenger had been examined and placed its reliance on judgment of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others 2000-I-LLJ 27 and held that the charges had not been established. 2. Learned counsel, Sh. Nalwa appearing on behalf of the State would contend that the statement of passengers was unnecessary and it bears out from the Enquiry Officer's report that the two Inspectors Om Parkash and Sube Singh had given their statements and on consideration of all the records, the Enquiry Officer had come to a conclusion that the charges had been proved. The wide expression made by the Labour Court that if the passengers had not been examined, the whole enquiry would be vitiated is not a correct law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others could not be stated to have laid down a law that if the statement of passengers had not been taken, the C.W.P. No.6588 of 2002 -3- enquiry itself must be taken as vitiated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was merely examining an instance along with several other factors for coming to such a conclusion. The said decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation does not spell out a proposition of law as wrongly inferred by the Labour Court that in the absence of a statement from fellow passengers, a proof of misconduct of embezzlement cannot be established at all. If the enquiry were to be found as not fair and proper at least, it ought to have granted an opportunity to the management to adduce evidence and prove the misconduct if it was possible. The Labour Court had not given such opportunity but proceeded to direct the reinstatement of the workman. 3. While, I do not propose to interfere with the finding that the enquiry had not been fair and proper, I still find, on the request of the counsel for the State, that the management should be granted an opportunity to prove the misconduct. The matter shall go back to the Labour Court for giving the opportunity to the management to give evidence in proof of the alleged misconduct. Needless to state that the workman shall have an opportunity to rebut any evidence that may be given against him. 4. It is stated that by virtue of the order of reinstatement granted under the award, the workman had also been reinstated. The status of the workman shall ultimately depend on the outcome of the enquiry before the Labour Court and his present C.W.P. No.6588 of 2002 -4- status as a reinstated employee will not grant him any special privileges. 5. The award of the Labour Court is, under the circumstances, set aside and the parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 22.12.2009. The Labour Court shall endeavour to dispose of the case, having regard to the fact that the termination was of the year 1995, within six months. 6. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 26, 2009 Pankaj* C.W.P. No.6588 of 2002 -5-