IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 6556 of 2008 Date of decision: 23rd April, 2008 Charan Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner-workman assailing the impugned award dated 05.10.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Labour Court. Petitioner-workman had served a demand notice (Annexure P-7) on 17th February, 2000. The management passed an order imposing punishment upon the workman as follows: “1. Order No. 3111-15/Steno GM dt. 1.3.95 whereby one increment of the workman has been stopped with cumulative effect. 2. Order No. 10639/Steno GM dt. 28.7.95 whereby 2 increments of the workman has been stopped with cumulative effect. 3. Order No. 23534-38/Steno GM dt.22.10.96 whereby one increment of the workman has been stopped with cumulative effect and pay of the suspension period Civil Writ Petition No. 6556 of 2008 w.e.f. 5.7.96 to 21.10.96 has ordered to be forfeited along with subsistence allowance.” Aggrieved against the punishment, following reference was made to the Labour Court: “Whether the demands raised by the Worker Union in the demand notice dated 17th February, 2000 served upon the management are justified; if so, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to, if any?” In the written statement filed, the management has stated that legality and validity of the orders passed in year 1995 has been challenged in the reference, which has been made in year 2002. Therefore, same cannot be sustained on the ground of delay and laches. Furthermore, it was stated that order dated 22nd October, 1996 was passed on admission of guilt by the workman. The primary grievance raised before us is that after departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer, in his report has exonerated the workman. The punishing authority had recorded a dissenting note and had not agreed with the findings arrived in the enquiry report and decided to issue a show cause notice to the workman. The Labour Court held that on perusal of the statement of the witnesses examined during the enquiry, it cannot be said that the dissenting note of the punishing authority was based on any evidence. Labour Court also came to the conclusion that re-appraisal of evidence is not permissible. The Labour Court further held that there was sufficient material for the punishing authority to record the dissenting note and after issuance of the show cause notice, hearing the petitioner to impose the punishment. Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the workman has been leniently dealt with and quantum of punishment is adequate. 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 6556 of 2008 We have heard counsel for the petitioner. He is unable to dislodge the findings recorded by the Labour Court, which are apt, just and appropriate. We find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE April 23, 2008 rps 3