C.W.P No.1643 of 2000 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.1643 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.08.2009 Punjab Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Ram Sewak and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. 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 writ petition challenges the award of the Labour Court finding that there was no proper domestic enquiry and the management had not proved the charges attributed to the workman even before the Labour Court. The charge against the workman was that the workman had incited other workers not to do work during the working hours of the Spinning Mill. Admittedly, the workman did not participate in the enquiry, after his demand for receiving the evidence of the domestic enquiry was turned down. The Labour Court found that the enquiry proceedings which had been filed into Court, were not even proved by examining the Enquiry Officer. It had also noted down the fact that no evidence had been examined nor the copy of the enquiry report sent to the workman before a final decision was taken. Even in the challenge made by the petitioner in the writ petition, apart from stating that a charge-sheet had been levied against the workman and his reply had C.W.P No.1643 of 2000 (O&M) -2- been obtained, there was no denial of an observation made by the Labour Court that the enquiry report did not contain any reference of examination of any witness. In a matter that imputes misconduct of the workman at the work spot, a just conclusion could never have been reached without obtaining the version of any eye-witness. It is not a fit case where an award rendered on factual consideration would require to be interfered with. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the company has been ordered to be wound up and the proceedings are being continued before the Official Liquidator. Under the circumstances, while affirming the order of the Labour Court, it shall still not be possible to direct reinstatement. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that in all cases of similar categories where the same Mill was a party, the direction has been for 40% of the back wages. The award of the Labour Court will stand modified, keeping in mind the subsequent events and the relief that the workman shall be entitled would fall to be restricted to 40% of the back wages for the sake of homogeneity of approach of similarity of reliefs for every workman involved in relation to every case in which the Punjab Spinning Mills Ltd. was a party. 3. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 25, 2009 Pankaj*