C.W.P No.11473 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.11473 of 2000 Date of Decision: 28.08.2009 Kaptan Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The counsel Sh. A.P. Bhandari is not present and a representation is made on his behalf that he is out of station and that, therefore, he is not ready. Learned counsel for the respondent is ready and I have gone through the papers with his assistance. 2. The wit petition challenges the award rejecting a reference sought by the workman upholding the punishment in the domestic enquiry removing him from service. The Labour Court had first undertaken a preliminary consideration of whether the domestic enquiry had been fair and proper and whether the workman had been granted adequate opportunity to represent the case before the Enquiry Officer. The charges against the workman on the basis of which the C.W.P No.11473 of 2000 -2- enquiry had been undertaken was that he had been guilty of habitual absence and he had also indulged in acts of subversion of machineries on various occasions. Detailed charges had been given listing out as many as 9 instances and the enquiry had been conducted after receiving objection from the workman. The Labour Court had held by its order dated 19.12.1997 that the enquiry was fair and proper. In its order all the specific charges made against the workman had been detailed and the Labour Court had examined whether the enquiry had been properly conducted. After the disposal of the matter on the preliminary subject, the case had been taken up and the Labour Court had also examined the question whether the punishment meted out was justified. The Court found, making references to decisions in Indian Iron and Steel Company Vs. The workman 1989 (59) FLR 649 and Tata Engineering Vs. S.C. Prasad SCLJ (4) 1950-1983 and held that habitual absence was definitely one of serious misconducts. It was a case where the workman during the year 1986, had absented himself for 73 days and in the year 1987, he had absented himself for 60 days and it was also a charge that the workman had created deliberate defects in the machines, CL3, CL4 and CL7. The loss of hours of work by his acts of subversion were also been taken note of. There had been several occasions where the management had reprimanded the workman for his conduct during the working hours and those aspects had also been considered by the Labour Court. Ultimately, it found that compensation of Rs.15,000/- would be appropriate and upheld the decision of the management in terminating the services. All the relevant factors have been properly considered C.W.P No.11473 of 2000 -3- and there is no scope for intervention in the writ petition. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 28, 2009 Pankaj*