Civil Writ PetitionNo.1572 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ PetitionNo.1572 of 1989 Date of Decision:15.12.2008 The New Sutlej Transport Company Private Limited, Jalandhar .....Petitioner Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Klar, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by the New Sutlej Transport Company Private Limited, Jalandhar under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned award dated 16.3.1988 Annexure P.4. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Rajinder Kumar- respondent (hereinafter to be referred as `the workman') was employed as a driver by the petitioner- Company. On 9.4.1985, while he was on duty with bus No.6331, he took liquor and misbehaved towards his superiors and deliberately and willfully caused loss to the petitioner. On receiving complaint, he was charge-sheeted vide letter dated 12.4.1985. Despite of service of the charge-sheet, he did not submit any reply. As such, domestic inquiry was ordered vide letter dated 9.5.1985. The Inquiry Officer under the circumstances was left with no alternative except to proceed ex-parte. As a result of domestic inquiry, the charges stood proved. Civil Writ PetitionNo.1572 of 1989 -2- The result of the same was communicated to the workman through registered letter Annexure P.2 dated 27.5.1985, vide which, he was dismissed from service. He raised an industrial dispute. Vide the impugned award Annexure P.4 dated 16.3.1988, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar wrongly held that “the termination of the workman has been found to be not justified and valid and be reinstated with full back- wages and continuity of service.” This award is liable to be quashed in view of the reasons embodied in this petition. None has come forward to argue on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard Mr. A.S.Klar, Advocate on behalf of the workman, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court with due care and circumspection. Mr. Klar urged with great vigour that Avtar Singh, the Managing Director of the Management under the stress of cross- examination had admitted that show cause notices Ex.M/2 as well as Ex.M/3 were sent under Certificate of Posting, which in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in re: Fakir Mohd. (Dead) by Lrs v. Sita Ram, 2002(1) Recent Civil Reports (Rent) 91 would have not been received by the workman. Consequently, no fault can be found with the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court in arriving at the conclusion that the termination of the workman was not justified and valid. I have well considered these submissions. In paragraph No.6 of the impugned award, it has been observed that he (referring to Avtar Singh sic.) had admitted in his cross-examination that these letters were sent under Certificate of Posting. In re: Fakir Mohd. (Dead) by Lrs (supra), the Civil Writ PetitionNo.1572 of 1989 -3- notice was sent under Certificate of Posting. The Apex Court held that the presumption of service arising under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is a permissive presumption which the Court may or may not raise depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. It is not clear who handed over the notice to the post office. It is not difficult to get the postal seals at any point of time. It was thus held that the presumption of service of notice could not be drawn. In re: Shiv Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 445, as a measure of proof of service upon the workman, the Management had produced postal certificates. The service of statutory notice was disputed. It was held that it is not safe to decide such dispute on the basis of postal certificate as it is not difficult to get such postal seals at any point of time. In view of these observations, the findings returned by the Labour Court with regards to the receipt of the afore-referred letters by the workman under the postal certificate of posting cannot be faulted with. On going through the rest of the findings returned by the Labour Court, it transpires that no contrary view can be taken thereto. Sequelly, I do not consider it proper to interfere with the impugned award in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition is dismissed. December 15, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No