IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No. 241 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 04, 2009 Amrik Singh …. Appellant Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Narinder Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate, for the appellant. J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) The appellant was, in the first instance, proceeded against departmentally for the following charges:- “(1) that when his bus was checked on way to Delhi from Mukatsar between Malour and Dabwali, it was discovered although three passengers were travelling from Mukatsar to Delhi two from Mukatsar to Rohtak and one from Mukatsar to Hissar all of them had been charged from Delhi but given tickets for Sirsa and had in the process embezzled from Rs.85.25 ps. (2) that when the case in hand with the workman was checked on 18.6.79 on his return trip from Delhi it was found in excess of the sale proceeds of the tickets by Rs.102.32 ps. Suggesting LPA No. 241 of 2009 that he had charged certain passengers without issuing them the requisite tickets; and (3) that when his bus was checked again on 3.4.79 on way to Bathinda from Mukatsar he was found to have charged Rs.2/- from four passeners (@ Rs.0.50 ps per head) without issuing any tickets to them.” Having found the appellant – workman guilty, he was terminated from his employment. Dis-satisfied with the determination rendered by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Mukatsar, the appellant raised a dispute, which was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda, vide an award dated 25.03.1987 declined the claim of the appellant. The finding, recorded by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Mukatsar, was upheld. Dis-satisfied with the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda, dated 25.03.1987, the appellant approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 10218 of 1988. The learned Single Judge dismissed the aforesaid writ petition on 17.11.2008. The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed to assail the order passed by this Court on 17.11.2008, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 10218 of 1988 preferred by the appellant was dismissed. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has advanced only one contention, namely, that during the course of the departmental enquiry, the proceedings before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda, as also before this Court during the course of the determination of the Civil Writ Petition No. 10218 of 1988, the evidence produced at the hands of the appellant was not appropriately assessed. 2 LPA No. 241 of 2009 It is not possible for us to accept the aforestated contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The conclusion drawn by the authorities referred to hereinabove is well reasoned and calls for no interference. Despite the conclusion recorded by us in the foregoing paragraph, we consider it just and appropriate to extract hereunder the basis of the claim on which the appellant suggests that the consideration at the hands of the authorities was inappropriate. We are accordingly extracting hereunder the part of the statement of Harminder Singh, (one of the witnesses produced by the appellant, during the course of the departmental proceedings) to which the learned counsel for the appellant had invited our attention, during the course of hearing:- “On 17.6.79, there were two other passengers with me. We had boarded the Punjab Roadways Bus at 5.15 a.m. from Mukatsar for Sirsa. When the bus reached Malout, it was checked by an Inspector. On enquiry from him whether we had to go to Sirsa or Delhi, we replied that we have to go to Delhi, but from Sirsa some of our passengers were to board the bus. We have to go to Delhi after waiting for them. Despite our saying so the Inspector forcibly took the unpunched tickets from Sirsa to Delhi from the conductor. We had tickets from Mukatsar to Sirsa.” Having perused the statement recorded by one of the defence witnesses of the appellant, we are satisfied that the same is, in fact, a turn around of their earlier account, inasmuch as they clearly informed the Inspector who had checked the bus that they had boarded the bus to go to Delhi, although they 3 LPA No. 241 of 2009 tried to mix-up the factual position by asserting that, some other passengers were to accompany them from Sirsa for their onwards journey to Delhi. Having recorded our remarks as above, we are satisfied that the statement of the defence witness, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, cannot be read to draw an inference in his favour. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. In view of the fact that the main appeal has been dismissed on merits, we find no justification for passing a separate order on the application for condoning the delay (in filing the instant appeal). ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge August 04, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 4