IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 2001 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 1, 2011 State of Haryana …Appellant Versus Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur and another …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE HON'BLE HON'BLE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. HON’BLE MR. HON’BLE MR. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA AJIV NARAIN RAINA AJIV NARAIN RAINA AJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. M.M. M.M. M.M. KUMAR, A KUMAR, A KUMAR, A KUMAR, Acg. g. g. g.C.J.J.J.J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, preferred by the State of Haryana, is directed against the judgment dated 6.7.2011, rendered by the learned Single Judge endorsing the view taken by the Labour Court in its award dated 10.1.2011. According to the findings recorded by the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge the workman-respondent No. 1 Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur was working as an Anganwadi Worker since 15.11.1987 and her services were terminated on 28.6.2007 on the basis of allegation of embezzlement and misuse of amount of Self Help Group. No charge sheet was issued nor any inquiry was held. The Labour Court reinstated her in service with 50% back wages and continuity of service. 2. The learned Single Judge rejected the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant State that the workman- respondent No. 1 was being paid honorarium and there was no LPA No. 2001 of 2011 2 requirement of serving of any charge sheet before terminating her services. It has, however, been noticed that the workman- respondent No. 1 had admitted some irregularities while withdrawing the cash directly for the purposes of preparing the meal which was contrary to the instructions and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant State. 3. We have heard the learned State counsel at a considerable length. It is well settled that an order of termination which casts stigma on a workman would ex facie be considered as penal. The same cannot be sustained without holding a regular departmental inquiry, which has not been done in the present case. The appellant State has not even availed the remedy before the Labour Court by resorting to the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court reinstating the workman-respondent No. 1 with 50% back wages has been rightly upheld. We find no illegality nor any such argument has been raised which may warrant interference of this Court. The appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) November November November November 1 1 1 1, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Pkapoor