IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.9313 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 25, 2011. Parmod Kumar .....Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar, whereby the reference “as to whether the termination of services of the petitioner by the Management of the respondent-Sugar Mill is justified and in order”, has been answered against him. The record would reveal that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Sugar Mill as a labourer and was brought on seasonal establishment. The petitioner alongwith some officials of the Sugar Mill was charge-sheeted for misappropriating 35.87 quintals of sugar worth Rs.53,358.25. His reply to the charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory and a CWP No.9313 of 2011 [2] regular enquiry was conducted. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner admitted the charge. His services were consequently terminated on the basis of the findings returned by the Enquiry officer. The Industrial Tribunal vide the impugned award has summoned and perused the record of enquiry and concluded as follows:- “....The respondent/management has conducted a thorough enquiry and complied with natural principles of justice. The Management/respondent is not expected to retain such workman into his service who has been found guilty of shortage of sugar of 35.87 quintals worth Rs.53,358.25 and he admitted his guilt/charge during inquiry as discussed above. Industry survives on discipline and not ought to perish on indiscipline. Hence the impugned order of termination of the services of the workman is not illegal or arbitrary at all which has been passed after disciplinary proceedings and is also based upon the admission of workman.........” In view of the above reproduced categoric finding of fact, no case to interfere with the impugned award by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is made out. Dismissed. May 25, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE