IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2402 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.02.2009 Prem Singh .....PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Satish Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 10.09.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, wherein it has been held that the departmental enquiry held against the workman is in accordance with the statutory rules and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice and the termination of the workman is in accordance with law and, therefore, the reference was rejected by the Labour Court. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Registrar, Co-operative CWP No. 2402 of 2009 -2- Society, after his termination, wherein a further enquiry was held by the Assistant Registrar, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the present writ petition, in which the allegations, levelled against the workman, have been found to be not correct. He further contends that the said enquiry has not been taken into consideration by the punishing authority and, therefore, his right for reinstatement is very much there. He further contends that the enquiry was not held in accordance with law as the same was an ex-parte enquiry, in which the workman had not participated. I have gone through the records of the case and on consideration of the submissions, as made by the counsel for the petitioner, the facts, which come forth are that the workman-petitioner was suspended from service on 30.12.1982 on the ground of embezzlement in the Society and a regular charge-sheet was issued on 09.08.1984, which was duly received by the workman. The workman, thereafter, filed a reply to the same. But not having been satisfied with the reply submitted by the workman, a regular enquiry was initiated vide order dated 02.06.1984. This enquiry was to be conducted by Sh. N.S.Gill, but thereafter, the said Enquiry Officer was changed and on the request of the workman, Sh. R.P.Garg, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was held against the workman, in which, according to the workman, he did not participate. However, despite various opportunities given to him, he failed to participate in the enquiry and, therefore, a detailed enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Show cause notice was given to the workman vide order dated 08.08.1984, to which a detailed reply was submitted by the workman. Thereafter, an opportunity of personal hearing was given to the workman by the department, wherein the workman appeared and prayed CWP No. 2402 of 2009 -3- for re-enquiry. On the request made by the workman, re-enquiry, in the charges levelled against the workman, was accepted and Sh. V.S.Rana, Ex-manager, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Due to the transfer of the said Enquiry Officer, Sh. S.N.Verma was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 22.08.1986. It would not be out of way to mention here that in this enquiry, the workman did participate and thereafter, on the submission of the enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 18.03.1987 along with enquiry report was given to the workman. Reply to the said show cause notice was given by the workman and thereafter, the workman was given a personal hearing by the Board of Directors and ultimately, his services were terminated vide order dated 27.03.1987. It is an admitted position that the arbitration proceedings were initiated against the workman with regard to the embezzlement of funds and these proceedings ended in favour of the department holding the Management entitled to recovery of the amount alleged to have been embezzled by the workman. The award is dated 13.03.1996. No appeal against the said award was filed and, therefore, the said award had attained finality. It is an admitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the embezzled amount was deposited by the workman in the Bank. In view of the above facts and the evidence, which have been produced before the Labour Court, both oral and documentary, the Labour Court has come to a categoric finding that there is no discrepancy or illegality in holding the departmental enquiry against the workman. Enquiry has been held in a fair and proper manner, wherein the petitioner has been held guilty and embezzlement of huge amount has been held to have been committed by him. The said amount, which was embezzled from three different Societies, where he worked as Secretary, the details CWP No. 2402 of 2009 -4- whereof have been given herein below, would itself depict that the workman was all through trying to embezzle the money from the Societies, wherever he worked. Name of Society Amount of charge of embezzleme nt/misappro priation Amount of charge proved Amount outstanding Balance Emb. Mis. App. Emb. Mis.App. 1. Khara Barwala 30078.50 - 30078.50 - 30078.50 2. Gorchhi 7973.05 826.00 870.00 7973.05 826.00 870.00 7973.05 3. Mangali 14701.09 - 14701.09 - 14701.09 4. Rawalwas - 1926.05 - 1926.05 - TOTAL 52752.64 3622.05 52752.64 3622.05 52752.64 In this view of the matter, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry report dated 23.07.1991 (Annexure P-1) has not been taken into consideration by the Labour Court while coming to a conclusion that he has not been given a fair opportunity to defend himself, cannot be sustained. Another aspect, which needs to be highlighted herein, is that the service of the workman was terminated on 27.04.1987 and the demand notice was served on 26.03.1999, reference whereof has been made in the year, 2000. No explanation whatsoever has come forth except that the appeal was preferred, which was also decided against him by the Appellate Authority. It is also not in dispute that the award, which was passed CWP No. 2402 of 2009 -5- against the workman by the Arbitrator, was dated 11.03.1996, still there is no justification on the part of the workman for delaying the submission of his demand notice by 12 years. The workman is unable to justify his demand notice. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of U.P. State Sugar Co-operative Mill and others vs. Kamal Swaroop Tandon, 2008 (2) RSJ 106 to contend that if there is miscarriage of justice or justice is not done to the workman then the Court should be liberal in condoning the delay, if any. I do not find this to be a case where there is miscarriage of justice or justice is not done to the workman, therefore, the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable to the present case. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 16, 2009 pj