CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10976 OF 1992 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 08, 2010 Punjab State Electricity Board, Sangrur .....Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. L. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Brar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Punjab State Electricity Board (for short, “the Board”) has filed this writ petition for quashing the award dated 7.4.1992 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala. The petitioner had terminated the services of Surinder Singh, respondent No.2, which gave rise to an industrial dispute. The said dispute was referred for adjudication by Labour Court, Patiala on 19.4.1989. As per the statement of claim, the respondent-workman had worked for six months with the petitioner Board as Assistant Line CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10976 OF 1992 (O&M) :{ 2 }: Man and was drawing a pay of Rs.819/- per month as wages as on 3.11.1985, when his services were wrongly terminated without notice, charge sheet or enquiry. He accordingly claimed reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner-Board filed a written statement, pointing out that the respondent-workman was appointed only for a period of six months on sports basis. He did not show any interest in the post and the Sports Officer recommended that his services be terminated and accordingly the Board had terminated the services of the respondent-workman. The only issue pressed before the Labour Court was that whether the order of termination of the services of the respondent- workman was justified and in order or not. The petitioner Board had examined two witnesses to substantiate their stand. MW-1, while giving evidence stated that the respondent-workman was appointed as ALM, but admitted that there was no proof with him to show that the workman was ever asked to take part in the games. As per his evidence, the workman used to practice for the games at the place of his posting. He also admitted that there was no report received to say that the workman never took part in the games. When cornered, the witness had to admit that the workman was removed from the service on account of unsatisfactory work. This witness further admitted that the respondent-workman was neither charge-sheeted nor any enquiry held and that no compensation was paid to the workman. Sh.Surinder Nath Sharma (MW-2) deposed that the services of the respondent-workman were terminated on the report of the Sports Officer. This witness also conceded that no report of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10976 OF 1992 (O&M) :{ 3 }: unsatisfactory work was ever received from the Line Superintendent or S.D.O. The workman appeared and gave evidence in support of his claim. As per the evidence, the workman proved that he was removed from service without any notice, charge-sheet, enquiry or payment of compensation. The workman also claimed that he also practiced for the games but was never sent by the Sports Officer to participate in any game or match. The workman had been selected by the Selection Committee but his services were terminated by the Xen on the recommendation of Sports Officer. The workman was appointed on adhoc basis for a period of six months. Even the recommendation of the Sports Officer showing that the services of the workman were unsatisfactory, was not produced. The Labour Court accordingly found that termination of the services of the workman without notice, charge-sheet and enquiry amounted to his removal from service and was stigmatic. The Labour Court was justified in further observing that even if the workman was on probation, he could be removed for unsatisfactory work only after seeking his explanation or after holding enquiry etc. The Senior Sports Officer, who had signed the exhibit, did not appear even in the witness box. There was no material to indicate that the work and conduct of the workman was unsatisfactory in any manner. The finding by the Labour Court that services of the workman were terminated and there is an indication of malafide are not without basis or substance. Nothing could be pointed out to show any infirmity in the impugned order. In fact, it is also revealed that during the pendency of the writ petition, the workman had been reinstated into service while CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10976 OF 1992 (O&M) :{ 4 }: complying with the award passed by the Labour Court. The workman accordingly had been continuing in service. Rather, it has subsequently come on record from the affidavit filed by Sh.D.P.S.Grewal, Additional Superintending Engineer, Distribution Division, PSEB, Sangrur, dated 24.3.2010, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, that the work and conduct of the respondent- workman from the date of his reinstatement upto date is satisfactory and there had been no adverse remarks against him during the period he had worked with the petitioner-Board. This affidavit was taken on record through an order dated 26.3.2010. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. July 08, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE