CWP No. 14936 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14936 of 2009 Date of decision: 07.09.2011 Inderjeet Singh ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Patiala and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Gurdip Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G. Punjab *** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Challenge is to the impugned award dated 07.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 1 and for issuance of direction to respondent No. 3 to reinstate the petitioner back into service with full back-wages and all consequential benefits. The petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar by respondent No. 3 on 15.07.1986 on regular basis. He continued to work upto 13.01.1991/17.05.1994. His services were terminated by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 18.05.1994, retrospectively w.e.f 14.01.1991. The case of the petitioner is that he remained ill from 13.01.1991 to 19.02.1991, therefore, he failed to join the duty. The department issued charge sheet on 18.12.1991 which was duly received by the petitioner. He CWP No. 14936 of 2009 -2- chose not to participate in the said enquiry. Finally, his services were terminated on 18.05.1994 w.e.f 14.01.1991. The workman raised demand notice on 28.04.1997 and the matter was referred to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the workman had submitted his medical certificate (Ex. W1) and fitness certificate (Ex W2). The Labour Court after going through the entire evidence has upheld the order of termination dated 18.05.1994 and it was held that the workman is entitled to get subsistence allowance regarding the period from 14.01.1991 to 18.05.1994 as permissible under rules of the respondent-department. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the punishment on the absence from duty is disproportionate. Petitioner remained ill from 13.01.1991 to 19.02.1991, therefore, he failed to join the duty. He has submitted that the petitioner has served the department from 1986 and at best the department could punish the workman by stopping his increments but not by terminating the services of the petitioner. For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Haryana State Federation of Consumer's Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. and others vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tirbunal, Hissar and another, 2010-I-LLJ, 471. Learned counsel for the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from this judgment as in this case, the workman had an unblemished service of 11 years and his absence from duty was on the alleged ground that his daughter was un-well and he had to attend to her. He had also applied for leave and the head office had CWP No. 14936 of 2009 -3- not communicate him that whether the his leave was sanctioned or not. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner had remained ill from from 13.01.1991 to 19.02.1991. However, he has led no evidence to show that he became fit to join the duty and the respondent had not allowed him to join. He has not stated anything in his demand notice also. When the charge sheet was issued to him, he chose not to take part in the departmental enquiry. In view of the above fact, the departmental enquiry has been conducted in a fair manner. However, the order of termination has been modified by the Labour Court by treating the period 14.01.1991 to 18.05.1991 as his suspension period and the workman has been entitled to get subsistence allowance The order of Labour Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. September 07, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE