IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.2649 of 2011 Date of decision : 14.2.2011 Jai Singh ....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala & Anr. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner has impugned the award of the Labour Court, Ambala dated 26.7.2010. The primary cause of grievance of the petitioner is that during the course of enquiry which was initiated against him for having committed acts of commission he was not provided with the documents which were relied upon against him during the course of enquiry. He thus contends that the enquiry stands vitiated on this ground alone and he cannot be penalised on account of this serious flaw. The petitioner was working as a Cane Clerk. He was charge-sheeted on 2.2.2005 when respondent No.2 discovered that the details of indents and weighment slips were fraudulently modified by the petitioner on various dates from 7.12.2004 to 6.1.2005 with a C.W.P.No.2649 of 2011 -2- view to cause wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the company. The petitioner had contested the allegations against him. In the enquiry, which was conducted against him, the petitioner was shown all the relevant documents which the respondent-company wished to rely upon against him. The petitioner contended that the original documents have not been shown to him. The respondent's stand which is also reflected in the revisional proceedings initiated by the petitioner while making grievance of the non-supply of the original documents, was that respondent No.2 was not having in its possession the original documents and was only having the photo stat copies thereof which were made available to him. During the course of proceedings learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that this material had been shown to him but insisted that since original documents had not been shown to him, his right has been severely prejudiced. A perusal of the impugned award does not show any perversity that would warrant the interference by this Court. The petitioner has not been able to show as to how the principles of natural justice have been violated especially when his contentions are tested against the stand of respondent No.2 which has been taken all throughout the proceedings against him that the entire material which was relied upon against the petitioner was shown to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner then tried to state that the petitioner is innocent and that the facts would reveal that some other employee was at the helm of the affairs and the petitioner had C.W.P.No.2649 of 2011 -3- nothing to do with the allegations against him. I am afraid the Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India cannot look into the facts of the case to determine the propriety or impropriety of the actions of the petitioner. The sole grievance of the petitioner agitated before this Court having been found to be without any basis, I am of the opinion that the impugned award suffers from no infirmity. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. 14.2.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss