In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh LPA No. 201 of 2008 Date of decision: January 20, 2009 Diwan Singh ... Appellant Vs. The Labour Court Bhatinda and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Binayjit Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the respondent No.2. A.N. Jindal, J This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.11.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, upholding the termination of the appellant and dismissing the writ petition. The appellant had joined the service of the respondent No.2 as driver in November, 1984 and he continued as such till 15.7.1991. The appellant went absent without sanction of required leave, therefore, a domestic enquiry was held against him. He thereupon raised industrial dispute in this regard and prayed for setting aside his termination with continuity of service and back wages. The Labour Court on taking cognizance of the case while observing that the appellant was found guilty having not complied with the order of transfer and also due to his willful absence from duty, held termination as legal and justified. As such, the appellant filed a writ petition which was also dismissed upholding the LPA No. 201 of 2008 -2- award passed by the Labour Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to urge that no proper procedure was followed while holding the domestic enquiry regarding the absence of the appellant from duty and his failure to comply with his transfer orders but has failed to point out as to on what grounds the domestic enquiry was invalid. No such material irregularity or illegality in the process of enquiry has been pointed out except raising finger that the appellant was not served with the copy of the enquiry report. Having examined the impugned judgment and considered the contentions, we would not hesitate observing that the judgment does not suffer from any illegality. It is settled by now that once the domestic tribunal comes to a particular conclusion on the basis of evidence on record, then it is not open to the Appellate Tribunal or the court to substitute their subjective opinion in place of one arrived at by the domestic tribunal. The judgment, if any, which could be placed reliance is Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) vs. A.T. Mane, JT 2004 (8) SC 103. In this case also, the tribunal had clearly found the delinquent guilty of both the charges against him on the basis of the evidence led during the enquiry and the Labour Court had also upheld the said enquiry, therefore, no interference was made. Mere fact that the appellant was not supplied the enquiry report, that does not in any way cause any prejudice resulting into miscarriage of justice particularly when after the enquiry report the appellant submitted the explanation against the show cause notice as to why major penalty be not awarded against him and the penalty was awarded after following the procedure as provided under the rules. It may further be observed that LPA No. 201 of 2008 -3- though the appellant was asked to make a settlement but he himself did not honour the same as he withdrew only two cases filed by him against the Managing Director but did not withdraw the third case. Thus, the impugned judgment sounds to reason and is sustainable on all fours. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed. (Uma Nath Singh) (A.N. Jindal) Judge Judge January 20, 2009 deepak