C.W.P No.1478 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.1478 of 1987 Date of Decision:30.07.2009 State of Punjab .....Petitioner Versus Bua Singh .....Respondent Present: Ms. Monika Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Mr. J.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. 1. The award directing reinstatement of the workman is the subject of challenge in the writ petition. A temporary workman, doing the work of Conductor, was served with a show cause notice as to why he shall not be terminated from service, acting on a complaint of misconduct by the inspection staff that he had not issued tickets to some other passengers but collected the money. A reply was given denying the allegations that followed an order of termination in plain words that read “Sh. Bua Singh C. No. P11 is hereby removed from service no longer required as per terms and conditions of his appointment order”. 2. To a claim by the workman that the termination of service was as a measure of punishment, the management's response was that the termination was passed simpliciter which cast no stigma. The C.W.P No.1478 of 1987 -2- reference to the Labour Court was whether the termination was justified and the Labour Court found that it was entitled to examine the records to find out what was the basis for the ultimate decision to retrench the workman. It found the show cause notice preceding the order of termination as weighing in the mind of management to terminate the service and found the termination to be bad for it had been made without conducting any enquiry. 3. The challenge to the award by learned counsel appearing for the Government was that the workman was merely a temporary employee by the terms of the employment and the order of termination contained no more reference than his services were not required. The Labour Court, according to the learned counsel appearing for the Government, ought not to have looked for any other records or made any inference to the motive for termination which was not justified from the tenor of the termination order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the workman would repel this contention by pointing out that while the termination order simpliciter cannot give cause for complaint to a workman, Labour Court was always entitled to examine the ground for such termination and if it found that it was by way of punishment, it is entitled to interfere, if rules of natural justice had not been followed. 5. The Management of Utkal Machinery Ltd. Vs. Workman, Santi Patnaik AIR 1966 SC 1051 stated the proposition that it was open to the Industrial Tribunal to consider whether the order of termination was mala fide or whether it amounted to victimisation of the employee and not in bona fide exercise of the power arising out of C.W.P No.1478 of 1987 -3- the contract. R.R. Naidu Vs. State of M.P. (2000) 10 SCC 141 laid down that it was necessary to look into the file to know the background of a workman and the power of the Tribunal to lift the veil to know the ground was never lost to the Tribunal. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. etc. etc. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and others AIR 1980 SC 1896 is authority for the proposition that an Industrial Tribunal would be entitled to interfere with an order of discharge if it is found to be punitive or as the result of victimisation or unfair labour practice. In The Management of Brooke Bond India (Private) Ltd. Vs. Y.K. Gautam AIR 1973 SC 2634 dealt with the situation of termination of service of a probationer without assigning reasons but still the Court found that the Industrial Tribunal could go into the question of validity of the order of termination. A simpliciter termination of civil servant was set aside in Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India and another 1984(1) SLR 426 by stating that a recommendation of Director about misconduct, understood as the basis or foundation for termination of contract, although the order terminating the service itself did not spell out any detailed recommendation of the Director, was found to be punitive in character and violative of Article 311 (2). 6. Learned counsel appearing for the workman also points out that after the award was passed by the Labour Court on 04.04.1985, the workman had also been reinstated in the year 1985 itself and he has been in employment during all the period when the case was pending. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman cites two other weighty considerations namely of the fact that even before C.W.P No.1478 of 1987 -4- the Labour Court it was shown that a junior employee had been retained in service while terminating the services of this workman alone, which also betrayed the wrong intentions of the management to terminate the services only as a measure of punishment. The award passed was challenged by the management after more than a year of reinstatement of the workman. 7. Having regard to the changed circumstances of the workman, continuing in work for the management for nearly 25 years, after the intial order of termination and for all the points urged on behalf of the workman that the workman had been terminated as a measure of punishment, which contention was accepted by the Labour Court, I do not think it is fit case for interference under Article 226. 8. The award of the Labour Court is confirmed and writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 30, 2009 Pankaj*