C.W.P.No.10923 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.10923 of 2000 Date of Decision:- 09.01.2009 The State of Haryana and another ....Petitioner(s) vs. Mani Ram Ex.Conductor No.220 and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioners. Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Through this writ petition, the State of Haryana has challenged the award dated 4.5.1999 and the award dated 24.4.2000 (Annexure P-6 and P-6A) respectively passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hisar. The respondent-workman, a Conductor with the Haryana Roadways was dismissed from service vide order dated 25.9.1992 (Annexure P-1) on the allegation that on 21.3.1992 when respondent- workman Mani Ram was on duty as Conductor on Sirsa-Hodel route, a checking was conducted by the Checking Staff and it was found that the respondent-workman had received full fare from the passengers but had not issued tickets to any one of them and had, therefore, embezzled the full amount of fare. Accordingly, a domestic enquiry was conducted against C.W.P.No.10923 of 2000 -2- him in which a finding of guilt was returned against him and on the basis of the said finding, the order of dismissal was passed against him. Thereafter, the workman preferred a departmental appeal which was rejected vide order dated 14.7.1995. It is thereafter that a demand notice was served by the respondent-workman on the basis of which a reference was made on which the award dated 4.5.1999 (Annexure P-6) was passed on the preliminary issue as to whether the enquiry as held by the petitioners was fair and proper. Vide award, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted in haste, no person before the Inquiry Officer was available to represent the Management and the Inquiry Officer himself had examined two official witnesses and also cross-examined the workman. He had put searching questions to him in favour of the Department and, therefore, had acted as Prosecutor as well as a Judge which was against the principles of natural justice. It has further been held that the workman was not supplied with the list of witnesses or list of documents and, thus, was deprived of his right to defend himself as he could not cross-examine the witnesses which were produced by the Management before the Inquiry Officer. There was no documentary evidence before the Inquiry Officer; neither the way-bill nor the written complaints of the checking party were produced against the workman before the Inquiry Officer. In the absence of these documents, no positive finding could have been recorded by the Inquiry Officer. On this basis, it was held that no just and fair enquiry was conducted. However, the petitioner-Management was given an opportunity to adduce evidence and prove the charges alleged against the workman. C.W.P.No.10923 of 2000 -3- A perusal of the award dated 24.4.2000 (Annexure P-6/A) would show that the petitioner-Management has neither specifically pleaded the allegations against the workman in the written statement nor has led any positive or cogent reliable evidence to prove the said allegations of misconduct against the workman. The evidence which has been led by the petitioners is only the written report Exhibit M-8 of the checking party, departmental enquiry, passing of dismissal order or the appeal. These documents were very much available before the Court when the preliminary issue with regard to legality of the enquiry was in question which had already been decided against the petitioners. Having not produced any material witness who was a witness or member of the checking party nor production of way bills and unpunched tickets allegedly received from Mani Ram, respondent-workman, by the checking party shows that there was no material evidence before the Court to come to a conclusion, despite giving the petitioners an opportunity to adduce evidence, that the workman was guilty of any of the charges of misconduct as alleged. Counsel for the petitioners has with full vehemence tried to persuade me that there was sufficient evidence before the Labour Court to prove the allegations made against the workman which is clear from the enquiry report. However, in the light of non-leading of evidence on the material questions, as has been observed above, he has not been able to justify the non-production of the relevant documents and the material witnesses which were the members of the checking party or who had submitted the report which was made the basis for issuing a charge-sheet to the respondent-workman. C.W.P.No.10923 of 2000 -4- In the light of the above, no illegality can be found in the impugned awards dated 4.5.1999 (Annexure P-6) and 24.4.2000 (Annexure P-6/A). In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. January 09, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No