C.W.P. No.3941 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.3941 of 1990 Date of Decision: 13.10.2009 The Teona Coop. Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Teona, Tehisal & District Bathinda .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The management, who suffered an order directing reinstatement of the workman with back wages came on challenge through this writ petition contending that there is no justification for denying to the management any reasonable opportunity for giving evidence. The counsel was present in Court on 05.12.1989 but when he found that witness had not been present, the Labour Court proceeded to examine the workman and passed the award on the same day. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the management points out to the fact that on 16.05.1989, the Labour Court had framed the issues on the basis of the pleading between parties and C.W.P. No.3941 of 1990 -2- directed the case for evidence for the first time on 26.09.1989. The Court had recorded on that day that no evidence was produced and while entertaining the plea for an adjournment, the Labour Court adjourned the case to 31.10.1989 for the parties' evidence and arguments. On 26.10.1989, the Court had recorded the fact that the Judge was proceeding on leave on 31.10.1989 and therefore, the case had been adjourned to 05.12.1989 for evidence of parties and arguments. Obviously, the modification in the order adjourning to a particular date namely on 31.10.1989 was made by the Court in the absence of parties and therefore, the subsequent order passed on 26.10.1989 also records the fact that the parties were to be informed accordingly of the change in date. It was not as if on the date when the case was adjourned on 05.12.1989, there was no representation for the management. Their counsel was actually present. 3. The Labour Court had passed rather an unusual order that since three opportunities had not been availed by the management, there was no ground for adjourning the case and proceeded to pass the order on the same day. The manner of disposal leaves much to be desired. The Court was to adjudicate on a serious issue of defalcation and on enquiry that was conducted, which led to ultimate order of dismissal acting on the report of the Enquiry Officer. The Court was required to see whether the enquiry had been fair and proper and it was also C.W.P. No.3941 of 1990 -3- required to see whether the serious charge attributed against the workman had been established or not. Even the statement by the Labour Court that it had granted three opportunities, which were not availed was wrong. I have already referred to the fact that the issues themselves had been framed only on 16.05.1989. There was no justification for Court to proceed post haste for a disposal of the case for default. While desire of a Court to render adjudication without any delay is a worthy approach, it should always be seen in the context of whether a party, who was not present was deliberately absenting himself or was abusing the Court's process. The Court should also examine issues of pleas of adjournment in the context of how the party has acted during the course of proceedings. The absence on one hearing date cannot result in a serious consequence of the party not being granted an opportunity to join issues on the merits of the claims. The award upholding the workman's entitlement to reinstatement does not even traverse the grounds on which the workman was sought to be terminated from service. A serious charge against the workman has been unduly made light of and the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement and setting aside the order of termination was wholly unjustified under the circumstances. 4. A summary order passed by the Labour Court upholding the workman's claim without any enquiry on merits has unfortunately stayed in Court for two decades and it may be C.W.P. No.3941 of 1990 -4- unfair that the whole proceedings must go for a fresh adjudication before the Labour Court but I see no other alternative than to remit the matter to the Labour Court for a consideration in view of the serious allegations made against the workman and the complete lack of consideration of how the workman's claim was justified in the award passed by the Labour Court. 5. The award of the Labour Court is set aside and the Labour Court is directed to take up the case adjudication and disposal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Labour Court shall report to this Court after the enquiry is concluded. The learned counsel appearing for the management states that the management will endeavour to secure the presence of all the witnesses and would conclude its evidence in two effective dates of hearing. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 25.11.2009. 6. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 13, 2009 Pankaj*