IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3865 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 05, 2010. Kessar Dass s/o Shri Narayan Dass, resident of House No. 180, Bhim Nagar, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Industiral Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon, and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Padam Kant Dwivedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 03.08.2009 (Annexure-P-6), passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”), vide which the reference had been answered against the petitioner/Workman (hereinafter referred to as “the Workman”), holding therein that the inquiry proceedings held against the Workman and further punishment order passed by the Authority is in accordance with law, which does not call for interference by the Labour Court and, therefore, no relief has been granted to the Workman. Counsel for the Workman contends that the requirement of law is that the copy of inquiry report is to be supplied to the Workman after conclusion of the inquiry after consideration of the same by the Punishing Authority. In the present case, when a show cause notice was issued to the Workman proposing therein punishment of removal from service, the report of the inquiry was supplied to him. He contends that the said procedure adopted by the Appointing Authority is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble the C.W.P. No. 3865 of 2009. -2- Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Versus B. Karunakar, 1994 A.I.R. (SC) 1074. He on this basis contends that there are two stages after submission of the inquiry report, first, at the stage, when the Enquiry Officer submits his report and the Punishing Authority accepts the inquiry report and the second is after reply of the Workman has been received on a communication of the inquiry report, when a show cause notice for punishing the Workman is given. He contends that the first stage of disciplinary proceeding after submission of the inquiry report has not been complied with as stated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case referred to above. On this basis, he contends that the order of termination passed by the Punishing Authority, cannot be sustained. His further contention is that the quantum of punishment imposed upon the Workman, ordering his removal from service, is not in consonance with the allegations made against the Workman as per the charges. The Workman has an unblemished service record of 34 years with respondent. The order of removal from service has been passed hardly two months before the date of retirement of the Workman. The Labour Court has not appreciated this aspect in the right perspective and has failed to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Counsel for the Workman relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M.S. Sandhu, Ex-Executive Engineer Versus Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited, 2005 (4) S.C.T. 628, as also two other Single Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of P.S. Rao Versus The H.S.E.B., 2001 (3) S.C.T. 1086, and Smt. Kailash Sharma Versus State of Punjab through Secretary to the Govt. Punjab, Education Department, 2004 (1), S.C.T. 798, in support of this contention. C.W.P. No. 3865 of 2009. -3- I have heard counsel for the petitioner/Workman and have gone through the records of the case. It is not in dispute that alongwith show cause notice, copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner/Workman. He was given an opportunity to file reply and objections, if any, to the said show cause notice. The Workman had accordingly submitted his response thereto. The said response/reply was duly considered by the Punishing Authority and after taking into consideration the submissions made therein, the Punishing Authority proceeded to pass order of removal of the Workman from service. The judgment relied upon by counsel for the Workman in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Versus B. Karunakar (supra), has further been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and it has been held that the basic intent and purpose of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court was that the principles of natural justice should be duly complied with, while passing order against an employee, which would obviously affect his service career. In the present case, before final order had been passed by the Punishing Authority, a show cause notice was served upon the Workman. Alongwith the said show cause notice, copy of the inquiry report was duly supplied. The reply filed by the Workman has been considered, leading to passing of the order of termination. The principles of natural justice have been duly complied with. The ratio of judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court stood fully complied with and no prejudice was caused to the Workman. The order of termination passed by the Punishing Authority is in accordance with law and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. As regards contention of counsel for the Workman that the quantum of punishment inflicted upon the Workman is not in consonance with C.W.P. No. 3865 of 2009. -4- the charges levelled against him. It would suffice to say that powers under Section 11-A of the Act are extra ordinary, which the Labour Court in the given facts and circumstances, had on consideration come to a conclusion that the said powers need not to be enforced in the present case as the punishment inflicted is proportionate to the charges levelled against the Workman which has been duly proved against him in the departmental inquiry which was held in accordance with law. The discretion which is conferred on the Labour Court, has been rightly exercised by the Labour Court, which does not call for any interference by this Court as the punishment imposed does not shock the conscience of this Court also. The judgments relied upon by counsel for the Workman, i.e., M.S. Sandhu, Ex-Executive Engineer Versus Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited (supra), as also two other Single Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of P.S. Rao Versus The H.S.E.B. (supra), and Smt. Kailash Sharma Versus State of Punjab through Secretary to the Govt. Punjab, Education Department (supra), would not be of much help to the Workman as the facts of those cases were not similar to the case in hand. Further, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court had rightly taken into consideration the evidence, which had been led by the Workman before the Labour Court, in coming to a conclusion that the termination was in accordance with law as also that the order of punishment was in consonance with the charges framed and proved against the Workman. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 05, 2010. sjks.