IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3314 of 1996 (O/M). Date of Decision : May 04, 2009. Leader Engg. Works Prop. Leader Valves Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Area, Jalandhar. ....... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar, and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate, with Ms. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate, for the respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 10.07.1995 (Annexure-P-8), vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman, holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages and all ensuing benefits. Counsel for the petitioner contends that while framing issues on 28.08.1990, the Labour Court had only framed one issue which was taken as a preliminary issue which reads as follows “Whether domestic inquiry conducted against the workman is fair and proper”. He contends that on the basis of said issue framed, the Labour Court proceeded to record the evidence and thereafter, gave its findings. He contends that there was no occasion for the Management to claim opportunity to produce evidence in the C.W.P. No. 3314 of 1996. Court to sustain the charges levelled against the workman as there was no issue framed with regard to the relief or with regard to termination of the workman being in consonance with law. He submits that even the findings which have been recorded by the Labour Court on the issue referred to above, are not sustainable for the reason that only ground taken for giving such a finding that the inquiry was vitiated was (i) that Shri K.L. Jain was the retainer of the respondent-management and he being the legal advisor could not have been appointed as inquiry officer (ii) that the address on which the letter dated 31.08.1995/01.09.1995 was issued to the workman, did not specify the number of the house where the letter was to reach. The Labour Court had only proceeded on the assumptions that the said letter was not received by the workman. He submits that the workman with his reply to the writ petition has attached a letter dated 08.09.1995 (Annexure-R-2/2) wherein he had submitted the reply to the letter dated 01.09.1995. This clearly show that the letter which was addressed to the workman had been received by him and, therefore, had responded thereto. On this basis he contends that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained and, therefore, being contrary to the evidence on record which are documentary in nature, the same cannot be sustained and the same stands vitiated. He further contends that opportunity should be granted to the Management to prove the charges levelled against the workman in case the inquiry is said to be vitiated. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman contends that the Labour Court has rightly framed the issue with regard to inquiry proceedings being fair and proper and on the basis of evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court has given its finding, which do not call for -2- C.W.P. No. 3314 of 1996. any interference by this Court. He submits that appropriate stage at which the Management was required to make the claim with regard to opportunity to produce evidence to justify the order of termination in case the inquiry proceedings were vitiated was, at the stage of leading evidence before the Labour Court when the preliminary issue was being decided by the Labour Court. He further contends that having not done so, the Management cannot be now granted an opportunity to proceed and prove the charges against the workman. He further contends that no interference in the present award may be made for the reason that the Labour Court has on the basis of pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, passed the award. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. There can be no dispute that the reference which was made to the Labour Court was “Whether termination of service of Shri Mohinder Pal-workman is justified and in order ? If not to what relief exact amount of compensation is he entitled to.” Perusal of the order dated 28.08.1990, passed by the Labour Court clearly shows that only one preliminary issue was framed. There was neither mention about the termination of service of workman whether it being justified or not in order, nor did it include the relief for which the workman would be entitled to in case the said issue goes against the Management. In the absence of any issue being there with regard to the termination of the workman being justified or not, the award as has been passed by the Labour Court merely on the decision of the preliminary issue without referring to or framing issues on the question of reference made by the appropriate Government, cannot be sustained. Further even on the -3- C.W.P. No. 3314 of 1996. preliminary issue merely because Shri K.L. Jain was the retainer with the respondent-management would in itself not be a reason for vitiating inquiry proceedings. No evidence has been led on the part of the workman to show that the inquiry officer has not acted in a fair and proper manner or that he has acted in a bias manner while holding the inquiry. Further the letter which according to the Labour Court was sent to the workman not on the correct address or on the in-complete address has been found to have been received by the workman as is apparent from Annexure-R-2/2 which is attached with the written statement filed to the writ petition. This was the only letter which was referred to by the Labour Court for coming to a conclusion that the inquiry was not fair and proper as the inquiry officer has despatched the letter on in-complete address and the same had not reached to the workman. This finding is perverse and contrary to the documentary evidence on record and against the admission by the workman before the Labour Court. That being so, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court on preliminary issue, cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate that the case be remanded back to the Labour Court for re-framing of the issues and thereafter an opportunity be given to both the parties to lead fresh evidence to prove their respective assertions in accordance with law. The claim under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act was also made by the workman before this Court which has been contested by the Management on the ground that the workman is gainfully employed. As has come out during the arguments by counsel for the parties, the workman has been helping his father in the Kariyana shop. Be that it may, -4- C.W.P. No. 3314 of 1996. the Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice that a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- be granted to the workman in lieu of his claim under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 10.07.1995 (Annexure-P-8), passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar, is hereby set aside and the case is remanded for fresh decision as per observations made above. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Jalandhar, on 06.07.2009. The Registry is directed to return the records of the Labour Court forthwith. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 04, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter : Yes / No. -5-