C.W.P.No.9411 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9411 of 1996 Date of Decision:- 12.05.2009 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala through its Managing Director ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the respondent-workman. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 30.11.1995 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding therein that the enquiry conducted against him was not fair and proper and that he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages. Counsel for the petitioner-Management contends that the award passed by the Labour Court is not sustainable as a fair and proper enquiry was conducted by the Department wherein full opportunity was afforded to the workman to participate in the enquiry and he had cross-examined the witnesses produced by the Management. The finding as recorded by the C.W.P.No.9411 of 1996 -2- Inquiry Officer being based on the evidence produced by the Management could not have been interfered with by the Labour Court for arriving at a conclusion that the enquiry so conducted was not fair and proper. He submits that otherwise also the punishment so imposed upon the workman is fully justified as he had not stopped the bus when he was signalled to stop the same by the checking staff for the purpose of checking the bus, which facilitated the conductor to issue tickets to the passengers leading to a situation that when the bus was checked, all the passengers were found to be possessing the tickets. He has further vehemently argued that the Labour Court has erred in law while holding that the enquiry was not fair and proper. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that no evidence worth the name has come against the workman either during the enquiry proceedings or before the Labour Court which could even suggest that the workman was in collusion with the Conductor or he facilitated the Conductor in issuing the tickets during the period when he had not stopped the bus on the signaling of the checking staff and at the time when the bus was stopped by the inspecting staff by putting their vehicle in front of the bus. He contends that the time of checking of the bus was 7.50 p.m. on 7.3.1987 and at that time, it was pitch dark and, therefore, the workman could not see the signal being made by the checking staff. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to suggest that either all the passengers were without tickets or that they had been issued the tickets at that moment or during the interregnum period. There being no evidence on merits itself, the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the enquiry is based on no evidence stands fully justified. He further contends that the C.W.P.No.9411 of 1996 -3- Labour Court has further found that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated for the reason that the delinquent employee was not supplied with the copy of the complaint which was made the basis for taking action against him leading to prejudice to the workman to defend himself before the Inquiry Officer. However, counsel for the petitioner states that he was granted an opportunity to inspect the record. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the records of the case and the impugned award would show that the Labour Court has taken into consideration the evidence led by the parties before the Inquiry Officer in the enquiry proceedings. It is not in dispute that the termination of the services of the workman were based on the enquiry report. The enquiry proceedings were held in the presence of the employee-workman as it has come on record that he had cross-examined the witnesses so produced by the Management. However, in absence of any evidence which would show that the workman had connived with the Conductor or facilitated him to issue tickets during the period when he was signalled to stop the vehicle or when the vehicle was actually stopped, the charge against the workman stood unproved. Therefore, the finding as recorded by the Labour Court that none of the passengers travelling in the bus was called upon by the inspecting staff to verify the issuance of the tickets and the factual position that the inspecting staff had admitted that no passenger was found without ticket at the time of checking of the vehicle, goes a long way to show that there was no evidence against the workman to hold him guilty of the charges levelled against him. It has further been observed by the Labour Court that the workman had sought for a copy of the complaint which was made against C.W.P.No.9411 of 1996 -4- him and despite various opportunities given to the Management to prove that indeed the copy of the said complaint was made available to the workman, nothing has come on record to prove the same thereby leading to the conclusion that the workman was prejudiced in his defence before the Inquiry Officer and resultantly it was held that the enquiry conducted was not in consonance with law. Thus, the findings recorded by the Labour Court are fully justified being based upon the evidence so produced before it. No interference, therefore, in the impugned award is called for in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. May 12, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No