Civil Writ Petition No.108 of 2008. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Writ petition No.108 of 2008. Date of decision :8.1.2008. Jagroop Singh ...Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present; Mr. R.S. Longia Advocate for the petitioner. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. Challenge in this Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 3.6.1985, Annexure P-3, order dated 15.10.1998, Annexure P-5 and order dated 3.4.2007, Annexure P-10. As per allegations, the petitioner charged fare at the rate of 55P each from 18 passengers and, in this manner, mis-appropriated an amount of Rs.9.90P. Reqular enquiry was conducted and ultimately vide impugned order dated 3.6.1985, punishment of stoppage of four Civil Writ Petition No.108 of 2008. -2- increments was imposed. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 5.9.1994 after nine years of passing order dated 3.6.1985 and the same was dismissed by the Divisional Manager vide order dated 15.10.1998. The petitioner sought reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act ( in short the Act) and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, UT, Chandigarh. The Labour Court,vide award dated 3.4.2007 declined the reference and held that punishment order is legal and valid. Aggrieved by the above-said orders/award, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no limitation for making the reference. The petitioner came to know about the impugned order dated 3.6.1985 in the year 1994 and immediately an appeal was filed. The learned Labour Court has non- suited the petitioner on the ground of delay in filing the reference. No proper enquiry was conducted. The punishment awarded is harsh. To fortify his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authority U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and others Versus Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others, 2000(2) Service Cases Today 314, State of Haryana Versus Bikar Singh, 2001(4) Service Cases Today 936 and General Manager, Pb. Roadways Versus Amir Chand, 2002(1) Service Cases Today 300. We have carefully considered the submissions made by Civil Writ Petition No.108 of 2008. -3- learned counsel for the petitioner but do not find any force in the same. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that proper enquiry was conducted before imposing punishment. There is a definite finding in the enquiry report that the petitioner has embezzled an amount of Rs.9.90P in respect of fare charged from 18 passengers. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or glaring irregularity committed during the departmental proceedings. The petitioner slept over the matter for nine years to file departmental appeal. The explanation given by the workman that he did not come to know about the passing of the impugned order dated 3.6.1985 cannot be accepted. Hon'ble Apex Court in authority Haryana State Coop.Land Dev. Bank Versus Neelam, reported in 2005 A.I.R. (SC) 1843 has held that where demand notice is served after seven years, the workman is not entitled to any relief. It has been held in the said ruling that procedural laws like estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and doctrine of acceptance subsilentio are applicable even to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. So far authority in Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others's case (supra) is concerned, that authority is distinguishable. In that case, the conductor was charging Rs.1.50P from some passengers instead of Rs.1.80P. In that case, punishment of dismissal was held bad. There were no allegations of embezzlement in the said authority. Authority Bikar Singh (supra) relates to Article 311 of the Constitution. In the present case, award has been passed by the Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court. The finding of fact cannot be Civil Writ Petition No.108 of 2008. -4- assailed in writ jurisdiction unless the same is perverse or illegal. Authority Amir Chand (supra) is also distinguishable as in that case, the Labour Court returned the finding in favour of workman. So, in view of the above discussion, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K. C. Puri ) Judge January 8,2008. ( Ashutosh Mohunta ) Jaggi Judge Civil Writ Petition No.108 of 2008. -5-