C.W.P.No.16419 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16419 of 1995 Date of Decision:- 21.04.2009 The Rohtak Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Rohtak through its Managing Director ....Petitioner(s) vs. The State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vijay Pal Singh, Advocate for legal representatives of respondent No.3-workman. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 4.4.1995 (Annexure P-13), primarily based by the Management relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of The District Rural Development Agency, Gurgaon vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad etc. (C.W.P.No.14759 of 1992) decided on 28.7.1993, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that if an earlier demand notice has been rejected by the competent Authority, then on a subsequent demand being raised by the workman the Management was required to be issued notice and being heard failing which the reference could not have been made and the said second reference would be without jurisdiction and the award made by the Labour Court on such reference would be rendered C.W.P.No.16419 of 1995 -2- invalid. Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that the said Division Bench judgment of this Court as referred to above, would no more be a good law in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Singh vs. State of Haryana and another, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1007, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the initial demand made by the workman has been rejected and no reference has been made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Appropriate Government, on a subsequent demand having been raised by the workman the Appropriate Government is not required to issue notice to the employer or to hear or consider his objections before making a reference on the said demand notice. This being the legal position as of now, counsel for the petitioner contends that the legal ground as was taken by the Management before this Court would not survive. Counsel for the petitioner, however, challenges the award passed by the Labour Court dated 4.4.1995 by contending that on holding of an enquiry against the workman, a show cause notice was issued and thereafter, giving him a personal hearing his services have been dispensed with. He submits that since a proper enquiry was held against the workman and the rules governing his service having been complied with, the findings recorded by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and the award deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased-workman-respondent No.3 contends that an issue with regard to the factum whether the management has conducted a fair and proper enquiry was framed by the Labour court which was treated as a preliminary issue. On the said issue, a finding was recorded by the Labour Court vide its order C.W.P.No.16419 of 1995 -3- dated 8.3.1994 (Annexure R-1) wherein it was held that the enquiry as conducted by the Management was not in accordance with the Rules and regulations governing the services. The said enquiry being not in consonance with law, the Labour Court set aside the enquiry proceedings held against the workman. Thereafter, the Labour Court proceeded to decide the reference on the question as to whether the termination of services of the workman was in consonance with law or not. Since no evidence was led by the Management on this question, on the basis of the evidence led by the petitioner the award in favour of the workman has been passed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the impugned award clearly shows that issue No.1 with regard to the factum whether the enquiry as held by the Management was in accordance with law has not been accepted by the Labour Court and vide its order dated 8.3.1994 (Annexure R-1), it has answered this issue against the management and in favour of the workman. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to decide the reference vide its award dated 4.4.1995. It would not be out of way to mention here that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court vide its order dated 8.3.1994 (Annexure R-1) have not been challenged by the Management in the present writ petition. The said findings have, therefore, attained finality. As per provisions of Section 11-A of the Act, despite the finding having been recorded by the Labour Court that the enquiry was not in consonance with law, it was open to the Management to prove that the order of termination was justified against the workman. No evidence whatsoever has been led by the Management to justify the order of termination passed by it. In the C.W.P.No.16419 of 1995 -4- absence of any evidence on record which would have substantiated the claim of the Management with regard to the termination of the workman, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of the evidence produced by the workman cannot be faulted with. The award passed by the Labour Court is based on the evidence produced before it and no illegality could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner which would justify interference in the said award, by this Court. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. April 21, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No