C.W.P. No.5968 of 1992 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5968 of 1992 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.04.2011 Municipal Corporation Ludhiana …Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Upasana Dhawan, Advocate for Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate for the respondent No.2. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the award of the Labour Court whereby even while upholding the dismissal of the respondent No.2 it was directed that the dismissal would take effect from the date of the award and not from the earlier date. The respondent No.2 was working as a Mali Beldar with the Corporation. He was apprehended red handed having cut a C.W.P. No.5968 of 1992 (O&M) -2- Safeda tree and carrying logs of wood on the cycle. Vide documents Ex.R/1 he admitted his guilt and his services were terminated on 23.07.1983. Learned Labour Court after going through the direct evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 came to the conclusion that the respondent No.2 had indeed found committing theft of logs of wood which were parts of the Safeda tree and that he indeed executed document agreement Ex.R/1 admitting his guilt. Consequently, the Labour Court upheld the dismissal order. While placing reliance on the judgments passed in the matter of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Gulab Singh (1986) 68 FJR 132 and Des Raj v. Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow, SC 1990 LIC, 1892, the Labour Court held that since the dismissal is upheld after taking the evidence in Court the same would be effective only from the date of the award. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cite any judgment contrary to the judgment relied upon by the Labour Court. More so, in view of the fact that the respondent No.2 had denied his signatures on Ex.R/-1 it was incumbent upon the petitioner to hold an inquiry. That not having been done no fault can be found with the order of the Labour Court holding that even though the respondent No.2 was liable for dismissal yet the order would become operative only from the date of the award. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. ( AJAY C.W.P. No.5968 of 1992 (O&M) -3- TEWARI ) April 19, 2011 JUDGE ashish