Civil Writ Petition No.3695 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3695 of 2008 Date of decision: March 12, 2008 Director, State Transport, Punjab and another … Petitioners Versus Ram Singh Conductor No.215 and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Dr. Reeta Kohli, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for petitioners. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. The present writ petition has been filed by Director, State Transport of Punjab, challenging the award (Annexure P-1) dated 4th June, 2007, whereby penalty of stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect imposed by petitioner Management was held to be bad and was set aside. The workman (respondent No.1) has set out a claim that five adverse orders passed against him, whereby annual increments were stopped cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are liable to be set aside. The case of the workman (respondent No.1) was that his two annual increments were stopped with cumulative effect vide order dated 12th July, 1985 by General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar. Thereafter, another two annual increments were stopped on 1st July, 1986 and then five annual increments were stopped with cumulative effect vide order dated 24th October, 1996. Workman (respondent No.1) has again Civil Writ Petition No.3695 of 2008 2 stated that his two annual increments were stopped without cumulative effect on 6th June, 2000 and thereafter his one annual increment was stopped with cumulative effect on 9th May, 2001. Learned labour Court has held that orders dated 12th July, 1985 and 1st July, 1986 have become stale as the claims were submitted on 26.04.2003. Therefore, labour Court held that in view of the latest decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam and another vs. Sham Lal, 2006 (3) RCR 724 it cannot come to the rescue of the workman (respondent No.1) as there is an inordinate unexplained delay. The learned labour Court also held in favour of Management that imposition of penalty of two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 06.06.2000 is well justified as show cause notice was issued to the workman (respondent No.1) and proper procedure was followed. However, regarding stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 9th May, 2001 on the agreement of the parties, learned labour Court held that this order related to another Ram Singh conductor, who was having different badge number. However, order dated 24th October, 1996, whereby five annual increments with cumulative effect were stopped was set aside and it was observed as under: “It reveals that an enquiry was held, enquiry report was submitted in which the charges were not found proved against the workman, but the competent authority did not agree with it and after issuing a show cause notice to the workman, imposed the penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect vide order 16127-30/Steno/G.M. dated 24.1.96. No reason has been recorded by the competent authority for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Neither the Enquiry Officer has been examined in evidence nor any other evidence has been brought on record to justify the order of competent authority disagreeing with Civil Writ Petition No.3695 of 2008 3 the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thus, the order of the competent authority imposing the penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 24.10.96 is not according to law and is not sustainable. It deserves to be set aside.” We have heard Ms. Reeta Koli, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. It has been contended that the learned labour Court committed a grave error and has wrongly interpreted the evidence of Surjit Singh and the record reveals that the punishing authority, i.e. General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana (petitioner No.2) considered the matter in detail and gave his dissenting note on the findings of inquiry officer. In the dissenting note, punishing authority held the respondent No.1 guilty of charges liable against him in the chargesheet. We are unable to rely upon this contention of the learned counsel for the State as in para 15, it has been specifically stated by the learned labour Court that the inquiry file is on record and the competent authority had recorded no reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer. No documents or no inquiry report or order of petitioner No.2, whereby dissenting note was recorded, have been placed on file. We have been asked to formulate a contrary view from the finding of fact recorded by the labour Court without placing on record any material to doubt the same. Hence, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. [Ashutosh Mohunta] Judge [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge March 12, 2008. rps