CWP No. 18434 of 1991 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … 1. CWP No. 18434 of 1991 Date of decision: January 20,2011 Mangat Ram Seth ..Petitioner. Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another ..Respondents 2. CWP No. 2437 of 1992 Khadi Sewa Sangh ..Petitioner. Versus Mangat Ram Seth and others ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Ms.Gagan Deep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of the above mentioned writ petitions vide this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the factual matrix, which needs a necessary mention, has been extracted from the (1) CWP No. 18434 of 1991 for ready reference. 2. The contours of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant writ petitions and emanating from the record is that petitioner- workman Mangat Ram (for brevity”the workman” ) was working with the management of Khadi Sewa Sangh, respondent (for short “Management”). He was posted at Qadian, from where his services were stated to have been illegally terminated with effect from CWP No. 18434 of 1991 2 22.2.1988 vide letter/Order dated 28.9.1988. The petitioner claimed that as neither any reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided nor any fair and proper inquiry was held against him, therefore, the termination order is illegal, contrary to statutory provisions and principle of natural justice. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, petitioner raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court in terms of Section 10(1)( c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the “Act”). 3. The management contested the claim of the workman and filed the written statement inter alia admitting that he joined and was working as a Godown-Incharge with the management at the relevant time before his services were terminated. According to the management that a regular inquiry was held and charge sheet was issued to him. As he was found guilty, therefore, his services were rightly terminated. The management has stoutly denied all other allegations depicted in the claim petition of the workman and prayed for its dismissal. 4. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of his claim petition, workman filed the replication. 5. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following issues for adjudication of the case. “1. Whether a fair and proper enquiry was held ? 2. Whether termination of services of the workman is justified and in order ? 3. Relief.” 6. The parties, in order to substantiate their respective stands, brought on record oral as well as documentary evidence. The Labour Court after taking into consideration the evidence on record, decided issue No.1 against the management, while issue No.2 was answered in favour of the workman. 7. In view of the findings on various issues, the Labour Court directed the management to reinstate the workman with continuity of service with half back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement vide impugned award dated 27.5.1991 (Annexure P-1). CWP No. 18434 of 1991 3 8. Neither the workman nor the management felt satisfied and filed the instant writ petitions, challenging the impugned award (Annexure P-1). The Writ Petition No.2437 of 1992 filed by management was ordered to be heard along with CWP No.18434 of 1991 instituted by the workman by virtue of order dated 21.2.1992. That is how I am seized of the matter. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter to me, there is no merit in the instant petitions. 10. However, the celebrated argument of learned counsel for the workman that although he (workman) was entitled to full back wages but since the Labour Court fell in error in granting half of the back wages, so the impugned award (Annexure P-1) is illegal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. As is evident from the record that the workman did not produce any material/evidence much-less cogent/reliable on record to prove that he actually remained out of job (unemployed) and was not gainfully employed, after the termination of his service till his reinstatement. It is now well settled proposition of law that the full back wages can only be awarded to a workman, if there is positive evidence that he was not in any manner gainfully employed, during the relevant period, he remained out of job. In the absence of the same, to me, workman is not entitled to full back wages as urged on his behalf and as the Labour Court has rightly awarded half back wages to the workman, therefore, no interference is warranted in this regard in view of observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Company Limited Versus Rajendra (2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 490. 11. Now adverting to the second petition filed by the management, the main ground urged and set up in the writ petition as well as in the written statement filed before the Labour Court (Annexure P-3), was that the services of the workman were terminated after a regular inquiry. The written statement filed by the management (Annexure P-3) is as vague as anything. What were allegations/charges alleged against the workman, who, when, how and in what manner any regular inquiry was conducted, is totally lacking in it. Considering the entire material on record in this respect, the Labour Court recorded the CWP No. 18434 of 1991 4 following finding of fact:- “ There is no dispute that the workman had put in more than 240 days of continuous service with the respondent. The case of the respondent is that before terminating his services, a regular inquiry was held, charge-sheet was issued and after complying with all the legal requisite, the services of the workman were terminated as he was found guilty of the charge levelled against him. But the perusal of the file reveals that there is no inquiry whatsoever said to have been held against him. The respondent has tendered into only two documents into evidence, i.e.,, Ex.M1 and M2. Ex.M1 is the findings of Shri Hari Ram Chopra who has said to have enquired into the complaint made by certain workers of Khadi Sewa Sangh regarding corruption and misappropriation by Centre workers Khadi Sewa Sangh and Ex. M2 is the charge sheet served upon the workman. Except these documents, there is no other document in the file to prove the averment of the respondent that a regular enquiry was conducted against the workman and to prove that he was charge sheeted and was given full opportunity to defend himself. Even Shri Dharam Chand Secretary examined by the respondent as MW1 has admitted that except Ex. M1 and M2, there are no other papers pertaining domestic enquiry of the workman, no fair and proper enquiry was held neither the workman was given any chance to rebut charges levelled against him and as such I hold that the termination of services of the workman is not justified nor in order. The issues stand decided accordingly against the respondent.” 12. Meaning thereby, the Labour Court has recorded valid reasons and rightly came to the conclusion that as no regular inquiry was conducted, therefore, the termination of the workman was arbitrary and illegal. Such findings based on material/evidence cannot legally be set aside in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this court, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned award in this relevant connection by learned counsel for the parties, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. No other legal point urged or pressed by learned counsel for the parties. CWP No. 18434 of 1991 5 14. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed as such. January 20,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter: Yes/No