CWP No. 20598 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20598 of 2009 Date of decision: 06.01.2010 Raj Kumar son of Shri Janam Singh ...... PETITIONER VERSUS M/s North West Switch Gear Mill and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.12.2008 (Annexure P-6) as well as the award dated 1.5.2009 (Anneuxre P-7) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-III, Faridabad, vide which the claim, as made by the petitioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner while challenging the order dated 18.12.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour CWP No. 20598 of 2009 2 Court vide which the enquiry, as conducted by respondent No. 1, has been held to be in accordance with law, submits that the notices, which were issued to the petitioner by the Management, were all returned back with the report that the petitioner was not residing at the given address. He contends that despite this being the report, the Management proceeded to hold an ex-parte enquiry against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer gave his finding against the petitioner. The enquiry proceedings are not in accordance with law as during the said proceedings, the petitioner was not duly served, which has resulted in the violation of principle of natural justice and he has been denied the benefit of fair and proper enquiry by the respondents. As regards the award dated 01.05.2009, he submits that the charges against the petitioner were not grievous in nature but still respondent No. 1-Management has proceeded to terminate his services. He further contends that correct subsistence allowance was not paid to the petitioner and the same was paid during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. He, on this basis, prays for quashing of two above-mentioned orders. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. A charge-sheet dated 26.10.1995 was served upon the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer was appointed vide letter dated 20.11.1995. The workman was, vide letter dated 21.11.1995 (Ex.M-2), informed of the enquiry proceedings and was directed to participate in the enquiry on 24.11.1995. The petitioner-workman appeared before the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter the workman did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was informed by way of pasting notice on the notice board of the factory and through various registered letters . Registered letter Ex. M-3 CWP No. 20598 of 2009 3 showed that the registered envelop was received back with the report of refusal. Registered letter Ex. M-5 was sent to the petitioner-workman for appearing on 08.12.1995. This letter was also received back unserved. Ex. M-4 is an undelivered registered envelop which revealed that the notices had been sent to the petitioner-workman to join the enquiry proceedings but the same had been received back undelivered with the report that the addressee i.e. workman did not reside at Village Dayalpur and his family members have refused to receive the same. Ex. M-6, which was a letter addressed to the petitioner to join enquiry proceedings on 08.12.1995, was received undelivered with the report that the family members of the addressee disclosed that he was residing at Ballabgarh and his address was not known to them. Similarly, Ex. M-8, which was a letter informing the petitioner to join the enquiry proceedings on 20.12.1995, also was returned back undelivered with the above observation as was found on Ex. M-6. Despite several notices having been issued at his residential address, receipt of which was being avoided by the petitioner, even notice was issued through publication in local Newspapers also but the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer nor did he join the enquiry proceedings. Left with no option, the Enquiry Officer had to proceed against the petitioner and held an ex-parte enquiry. The ex-parte enquiry against the petitioner-workman was fully justified. The learned Court below, vide its order dated 18.12.2008 on consideration of the evidence led by the Management before the Enquiry Officer, came to the conclusion that the enquiry held against the petitioner was fully justified and the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer was based on the evidence on record. The enquiry proceedings were, therefore, in accordance with law. It would not be out of way to mention here that there are no allegations that CWP No. 20598 of 2009 4 the Enquiry Officer had any personal vendetta or enmity against the workman or was, in any manner, prejudiced against the petitioner. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be thus stated to be perverse and untenable. The order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-III, Faridabad is fully justified and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. As regards the challenge of the petitioner to the award dated 01.05.2009 passed by this Court, suffice it to say that in the light of the fact that the enquiry held against the petitioner was in accordance with the statutory Rules and the Standing Orders governing the service of the petitioner as also the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, there is no illegality in the award passed by the Court below. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the charges against the petitioner were not grievous and, therefore, the extreme punishment of termination should not be passed against the petitioner also cannot be accepted for the reason that as per the charges against the petitioner, he had not only used dirty and abusive language against the senior officers of the Management but had also threatened them to beat them with the help of the co-workers. All the workers along with the petitioner had gone to the house of the Factory Manager and misbehaved with his family members and also raised slogans by giving dirty abuses and also threatened to beat them also. The petitioner had stopped the work in the workshop and instigated the other co-workers to go on strike. The charges having been proved against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, the order of termination passed against the petitioner is fully justified. As regards the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the correct amount of subsistence allowance was not paid, again deserves CWP No. 20598 of 2009 5 to be noticed and rejected as in his cross-examination, the petitioner had accepted the factum that the petitioner had been paid the subsistence allowance on time and he had received the subsistence allowance and admitted receipts Ex. M2/36 to Ex.M2/38. Another point, which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner should have been granted some more time to respond to the show cause notice, which has been issued to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the petitioner when given notice was provided sufficient time to respond to the same, which the petitioner failed to do so within the stipulated period and the Management has thereafter proceeded to pass the order of termination. In view of the above, the award dated 01.05.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-III, Faridabad, is also in accordance with law and on proper consideration and appreciation of the evidence as led by the parties before the Court. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE January 06, 2010 pj