CWP No. 1994 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1994 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.02.2010 The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Om Parkash c/o Sh. V.S.Singal and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate, for the Caveator. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 29.07.2008 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service on his previous post with continuity of service along with 40% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 15.09.1997. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Award passed by the Labour Court is not sustainable as the services of the CWP No. 1994 of 2010 2 petitioner have been terminated in accordance with the appointment letter, wherein condition mentioned at Sr. No. 1 states that the workman was on probation for a period of 2 years which could be extended to 3 years and if his work and conduct is not found satisfactory, his services may be terminated. He submits that in the light of the specific condition mentioned in the appointment letter dated 25.01.1990 (Annexure P-1), the termination order dated 21.09.1990 (Annexure P-2) was passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak, which is in accordance with law. He, on this basis, contends that the order being not punitive in nature but in accordance with the terms of appointment letter, the finding, as recorded by the Labour Court that the order is punitive and the services of the workman have been terminated without holding an enquiry or giving him any opportunity, is not sustainable. His further contention is that in case the Award is upheld to the extent that the workman is entitled to reinstatement as the order of termination was not in accordance with law but still liberty should have been granted to the petitioner to proceed against the workman in accordance with law to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, if it so desires. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The positive case of the petitioner-Management before the Labour Court was that the workman had misutilised the diesel as it is stated that earlier the bus, which was being driven by the workman, was giving average of 4.1 K.M. per liter but on 21.09.1990 when the diesel was refilled in the bus, it was noticed that it has consumed 85 liter of diesel in excess. The Management witnesses have categorically admitted in their cross-examination that it was because of this mis-conduct on the part of CWP No. 1994 of 2010 3 the workman that his services were terminated by the General Manager. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the work and conduct of the workman was found to be not satisfactory as the Management has failed to produce any evidence in support of this contention. That being so, the assertion of the Management that the services of the workman were terminated in accordance with the terms of the appointment letter, cannot be sustained. The findings and the reasoning given by the Labour Court holding the termination of the services of the workman being punitive in nature and the order of termination having been passed without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules applicable to the workman, are fully justified. In this view of the matter, the Award passed by the Labour Court is fully justified to this extent that the order of termination passed by the Management-petitioner is not in accordance with law. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that once it has been held that the services of the petitioner were terminated without holding an enquiry or complying with the principle of natural justice, the liberty should have been granted to the Management to proceed against the workman, if it so desires, deserves to be accepted. While upholding the Award passed by the Labour Court dated 29.07.2008 (Annexure P-8), liberty is granted to the petitioner-Management to proceed against the workman-respondent No. 1, if it so desires, in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 09, 2010 pj