IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.14529 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 17.02.2009 Sanjay Kumar ....Petitioner(s) vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 21.9.2006 (Annexure P-8) vide which the Labour Court had held that the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner-workman is in accordance with law as well as the award dated 2.1.2008 (Annexure P-9) vide which the reference has been answered against the workman. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the enquiry has not been held in accordance with the statutory rules governing service of the petitioner. He further contends that it has come in the statement of MW-2- Mahabir Singh, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-7, wherein he states that no stolen articles were recovered from the workman and further that he fled away from the scene after leaving the bag. It cannot be attributed that the said bag belonged to the workman and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Inquiry officer cannot be sustained. He further C.W.P.No.14529 of 2008 -2- contends that the punishment which has been given to the workman is too harsh and the Court should exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act to reduce the punishment and a lenient view should be taken in the present case. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that a further perusal of the statement (Annexure P-7) would show that the endeavour on the part of the workman was to steal aluminum from the premises which when weighed came to 25-30 Kgs. Had he not been taking those articles and an effort not made to catch hold of him, he would have been able to steal the said articles. He further contends that since it is not disputed that the workman was taking a bag which was recovered from the place where he threw it while fleeing, it cannot be said that the said recovery was not effected from the workman. He further contends that on the basis of this witness itself, the enquiry was held and the Labour Court on pursuing the evidence so led by the parties, has come to a definite conclusion that there is no violation of any statutory rules while holding the enquiry against the workman. Thereafter, the Labour Court has proceeded to decide the claim of the workman in accordance with the statutory rules governing the service. The Labour Court has further not exercised the powers under Section 11-A rightly for the reason that the management who has lost its confidence in its workman, cannot be forced to take him back in service, especially when the charges are of such a grave nature where none-else than stealing of articles stands proved against the workman. I have gone through the records of the case and the impugned award and am in total agreement with the submissions which have been C.W.P.No.14529 of 2008 -3- made by the counsel for the respondent. It is a case where no other punishment would have been awarded to the workman and no respite, therefore, can be given to this workman. There can be no second thought in this matter when it has been proved during the departmental proceedings that the workman had committed theft of aluminum waste weighing around 25-30 Kgs. There is nothing on the record which would show that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are either perverse or based upon no evidence. That being so, no interference in the present writ petition is called for. Dismissed. February 17, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No