LPA No. 51 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 51 of 2007 Date of decision : January 10, 2008 Shahbad Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Ltd. Shahbad -Appellant through Mr. R.L.Chopra, Advocate. Versus The Presiding Officer and another -Respondents through Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate (for respondent No.2) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijender Jain, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Vijender Jain, C.J. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment dated 23-8-2006 of learned Single Judge of this Court LPA No. 51 of 2007 2 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 1462 of 1990. The appellant Shahbad Farmers Co-op. Marketing-cum- Processing Society Ltd., Shahbad through its President filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned award dated 25-8-1988 (Annexure P-7) passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ambala on the ground that the Labour Court had not acceded to the plea raised by the Management that in case the findings of the enquiry are found vitiated for any reason, the petitioner reserve the right to adduce evidence afresh to substantiate the charge and to prove that the termination is proper and justified and the action taken was on the basis of the charge-sheet. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the portion of the written statement filed before the Tribunal, Ambala, which reads as under: - “That contents of para No.11 ( without number) are denied being incorrect because the applicant's services were terminated after due enquiry and after the charges against the applicant were fully proved on the basis of the record. In case the Hon'ble Court finds that the enquiry is vitiated for any reason whatsoever, the respondent reserves the right to adduce evidence afresh to substantiate the charges and to prove that the termination is proper and justified and action was taken on the basis of the charge-sheet ( Annexure `A') and it was for the applicant, who LPA No. 51 of 2007 3 was responsible for all the lapses and further that the respondent cannot repose any confidence on such a person who is responsible for huge loss to the Society for which recovery to the extent of Rs.64,132/- was ordered to be recovered from the applicant as per order dated 27-5-1981, which amount is still to be recovered from him. It is, therefore, prayed that the reference may be answered accordingly in view of the legal objection as well as on merits of the case holding that the applicant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.” The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that to substantiate the above plea, whereby right to adduce evidence afresh was reserved, there is nothing on record to show that any oral or written request had been made before the Labour Court for seeking such indulgence. We fail to understand and appreciate this reasoning of the learned Single Judge when in the written statement the appellant- Management had specifically taken a plea that they reserve their right to adduce their evidence to substantiate the charges. What else was required on their part? and how the same can be denied to them simply on the ground that no oral request was made before the Labour Court?. Had the opportunity to adduce evidence been afforded to them, the award may have been different. We cannot be a party to the technicalities, whereby any one can be deprived of just LPA No. 51 of 2007 4 adjudication. Hence, we allow the present appeal, set-aside the order of learned Single Judge as also the impugned award and remand the matter to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication, in accordance with the provisions of law. There shall be no order as to costs. [Vijender Jain] Chief Justice [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge January 10, 2008. `ask'