IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16741 of 2000 Date of decision:05.09.2009 Harnek Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The award under challenge is only as regards the modification of punishment that was made by the Labour Court. The workman had been served with an order of termination of service for absence from duty from 14.09.1984 to 20.12.1984 unauthorizedly. The Labour Court found the punishment to be excessive and by applying the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act modified the punishment to one of withdrawal of three increments with cumulative effect. 2. The award was passed by the Labour Court on 29.02.1996 and the challenge was made in the writ petition by filing the case on 29.11.2000. The contention of the learned counsel was that the Civil Writ Petition No.16741 of 2000 - 2 - punishment which was substituted by the Labour Court itself was grossly excessive. He would point out that the absence from duty from 14.09.1984 to 20.12.1984 when the order of termination was issued was on account of the fact that he was not permitted to join the duty and it was not merely a case of unauthorized absence. Before the Labour Court, evidence was tendered to the effect that he joined duty after leave from 11.07.1984 to 31.08.1984 on 01.09.1984. He continued in duty upto 13.09.1984 after which he remained absent. The workman sought to file documents in Court showing that he had sent letters offering to resume duty when the workman had prevented from joining. The Labour Court considered the copies of the letter to have been procured for the purpose of the case and did not believe the genuineness of the documents. It found, therefore, the misconduct attributed to him to had been established. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the workman would contend again that the change of address had been informed to the management and all the communications which had been sent were directed only from his changed address and the finding of the Labour Court that the documents were not true, was not justified. The finding of the Labour Court on the genuineness of the documents had been made on the basis of the fact that the workman filed the same after substantially a long period and the demand notice itself had been issued fairly after a long period and found also that the documents could not be true. I do not feel inclined to interfere with a question of fact and the inference made by the Labour Court after setting out its reasons. If the proof of Civil Writ Petition No.16741 of 2000 - 3 - misconduct was thus established, the Labour Court had given a finding that the punishment of dismissal was excessive and modified in the manner referred to above. The further interference as regards the punishment and provide for a still lesser punishment seems to be out of place before this Court. The jurisdiction and the breadth of discretion under Article 226 is not unbridled. It conforms to well established legal norms and parameters. The interference in the matter of punishment shall be only in cases where the punishment is either capricious or grossly disproportionate. I do not think it shall be proper to interfere with the punishment already imposed. 4. The learned counsel for the workman sought to contend that even the punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect was not provided under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. He refers to Rule 5 of the penalties that prescribes in sub- clause (iv) a provision for withholding of increments of pay. There is no reference according to him for withholding of pay with cumulative effect. A decision of the Division Bench of this Court in relation to Rule 5(iv) was made in Sham Lal Versus District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepur-1994(3) SCT 829. The Division Bench was dealing with the case of the extent of minor penalties which the rules provided for. The Court found on examination of records that the management was thinking of applying only a punishment as a minor penalty and it had specifically referred in paragraph 8 “To arrive at this conclusion, we had to peruse the nature of the charges levelled against the delinquent officials and the report of the Inquiry Officers. The petitions can be Civil Writ Petition No.16741 of 2000 - 4 - disposed of appropriately with a direction of punishment to be simpliciter withholding of increment for the period specified in the orders impugned before us without having cumulative effect.” This modification was made in the context of how the Court perceived even the management to have seen the misconduct and that the penalty that was contemplated was only a minor penalty. In this case, the unauthorized absence beyond the sanctioned leave for three months constituted major misconduct. The major penalty provided for included the action for termination of service. It was not a case where the misconduct was not established. The misconduct was found established but still the punishment of termination was found to be excessive and, therefore, the modification was made. The major penalty includes a provision for stoppage of increments and putting him even on lower scale. The stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was, therefore, a punishment which is not against any rule, but if the conduct is taken to be a major misconduct, a punishment of such a nature was perfectly justified. The Court will be loathe to interfere in matters of the quantum of punishment if it is a case where the power of the Court to inflict such punishment is also seen as not in contravention of any rule. 5. The writ petition itself was a belated attempt on the part of the workman to seek a modification as regards the punishment. The award of the Labour Court as I have already indicated was in February, 1996 and the writ petition was filed in November 2000, that was close to five years, after the impugned award. The writ petition would require a rejection without more on the ground of laches itself but I have Civil Writ Petition No.16741 of 2000 - 5 - undertaken the exercise of examining the case on merits lest the workman is ever left with a belief that his grievance was not fully addressed. 6. The award, under the circumstances, is fully justified and the challenge to the writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.09.2009 sanjeev