IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21109 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 15, 2011. Jai Parkash .....Petitioner versus General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner joined as a Conductor in the Haryana Roadways in the year 1978. On 10.1.1992, the Flying Squad led by one Arjun Dass, Sub-Inspector checked the bus going from Chandigarh to Delhi and found that the petitioner had issued/punched tickets to several passengers in order to embezzle a sum of Rs.280/-. The petitioner was charge-sheeted under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 on the allegation of embezzlement and the charges having been proved in a regular enquiry, his services were terminated vide an order dated 9.12.2002 (Annexure P-7). The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was also turned down by the Joint Transport Commissioner, Haryana, vide CWP No.21109 of 2011 [2] order dated 11.11.2004 (Annexure P-9). The petitioner thereafter raised an industrial dispute against his alleged wrongful retrenchment. The question that arose before the Tribunal was “whether the enquiry conducted against the workman suffers from any illegality or irregularity?” The Tribunal vide the impugned award dated 3.8.2010 (Annexure P-12) has answered the said question against the petitioner holding as follows:- “......11. In my view, the inquiry conducted against the workman did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. All the documents were supplied to him. Reply to the charge-sheet given by him was taken into consideration. Material witness against the workman was complainant Shri Arjun Singh Sapra. He narrated the details of the case. Allegations were highly technical in nature. It is established that the workman should have issued the tickets with combination of Rs.20 tickets alongwith others to the passengers on Chandigarh-Delhi route. Such tickets were available with the conductor at that time. Instead of that, he issued Rs.8 tickets alongwith others to passengers. Punch of tickets as 9-1 down instead of 20-1 down was also contrary to requirement on the route. The workman, when cross- examined, could not give satisfactory answers. One of the important answer in this regard is that he issued the tickets from the pocket book which fell in his hands in hurry. He could not tell even the amount of fare charged by him from those passengers. The inquiry officer duly considered the entire evidence on record while holding the workman guilty of the charges leveled against him. The workman has failed to proved any illegality in inquiry proceedings as well as in the punishment order CWP No.21109 of 2011 [3] dated 9th December, 2002. As the workman in a planned manner embezzled the amount of Rs.280/- only suitable punishment was termination of his services as done by the punishing authority. Taking into consideration the adverse record of the workman was not important factor in passing of impugned order. Even single instance of this kind was sufficient to terminate the services of the workman. The punishing authority gave personal hearing to the workman as per requirement of law. Authority quoted by the workman is not applicable to the facts of this case. Impugned order dated 9th December, 2002 is legal and valid. The workman is not entitled to any relief. This issue is decided against the workman and in favour of the management........” The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is urged that the Labour Court has failed to take notice of the length of service rendered by the petitioner as it was a fit case for it to invoke its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and reduce the quantum of punishment. True it is that the Labour Court and/or the Industrial Tribunal enjoys upon powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to reduce the quantum of punishment awarded to a workman, provided that such Tribunal/Labour Court is “satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified.....” It necessarily means that the Tribunal or the Labour Court is under obligation to look into the nature of charges and the proportionate punishment awarded to a workman. In the CWP No.21109 of 2011 [4] case in hand, the allegation of misappropriation of public funds has been proved against the petitioner. That being so, the punishment of termination of his services can not be said to be disproportionate or in excess of the nature of proven charges. The Labour Court was thus fully justified in not interfering with the quantum of punishment. No case to cause any interference in the impugned award by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. November 15, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE