Letters Patent Appeal No.836 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.836 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 13.5.2011 M/s Semi Conductor Laboratory ...Appellants Versus Presiding Officer and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the management against the order of learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal reducing punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect to stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. 2. Respondent workman Umesh Chand was employed as Technician Gade 'D' at Fire Pump House. Charge sheet was issued to the workman alleging that he left the place of his work without permission and made a wrong entry in the log book. Since the workman admitted the charge, enquiry was dispensed with and taking a lenient view impugned punishment was imposed. The union Letters Patent Appeal No.836 of 2011 -2- **** raised an industrial dispute which was referred to for adjudication on the ground that the punishment imposed was excessive and uncalled for. The Industrial Tribunal held that even though enquiry could have been dispensed with on account of admission of the workman, the condition imposed by the workman while making admission that a lenient view may be taken could not have been ignored and in the circumstances reduction of punishment was called for. The finding recorded is as under:- “The area, where the workman was engaged i.e. fire pump house, is very sensitive and absence from his work place is a very serious misconduct. No circumstances can justify his absence from such a critical area. But it is relevant to observe that the admission/confession on the part of the workman is conditional in as much as for taking a lenient view, it would, therefore, be appropriate to reduce the quantum of punishment of stopping three annual grade increments with cumulative to stopping of one increment with cumulative effect. The issue is accordingly decided partly in favour of the workman and partly in favour of the management.” The management challenged the award before this Court. Learned Single Judge after giving due consideration of the matter held that there was no justification to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Letters Patent Appeal No.836 of 2011 -3- **** Learned counsel for the appellant states that there was no justification for the Industrial Tribunal to interfere with the quantum of punishment having regard to the seriousness of misconduct. We are unable to accept the submission. Admittedly, no enquiry was held only on the ground that workman admitted his fault. While admitting his fault, workman imposed a condition for taking lenient view. Management itself has not imposed the punishment of removal from services and punishment imposed was stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the Industrial Tribunal having reduced the punishment, the award could not be held to be without jurisdiction so as to call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, interference is called for when the award is without jurisdiction or perverse. Reference may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhu Ram Vs. DTC 1983 (4) Supreme Court Cases 156. In these circumstances, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice May 13, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge