Civil Writ Petition No. 8967of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 8967of 1993 Date of decision:26th April, 2011 Bhule Ram .......Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer and another ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate for Mr. P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for respondent No. 2. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Mahesh Grover, J.(Oral) The petitioner has impugned the award of the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Rohtak (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 2.12.1991. His services were terminated on 30.11.1987. He pleaded that the same is not in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, deserves to be set aside. Upon a demand having been raised, the appropriate government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court which is to the following effect:- Civil Writ Petition No. 8967of 1993 2 “Whether the termination of services of Shri Bhule Ram is justified and in order? If not, to what relief he is entitled?” The Tribunal vide a separate order dated 31.07.1991 held that the enquiry was conducted and the allegations levelled against the petitioner were fair and proper and thereafter, went on to decline the reference. Aggrieved by the same, in the instant petition Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the enquiry was not fair and proper, the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced. He contends that the entire action of the respondent-management is vitiated on account of the false allegations levelled against him and also on account of the defective enquiry held by the respondents. He further stated that the petitioner had filed an application (Annexure P- 5) against the enquiry officer but no attention was paid to it. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that the action of termination of the services of the petitioner was in accordance with law and there was no infirmity in the award of the Tribunal. He further contends with reference to the facts of the case that the petitioner was employed in the year 1986 and shortly thereafter, on 24.11.1986 the unit was closed. It was further revived soon thereafter, and the petitioner was called for employment but a week or 10 days thereafter, he created indiscipline in the premises of the unit and assaulted the security guard. Civil Writ Petition No. 8967of 1993 3 Regarding that charge sheet was issued to him and proper inquiry was conducted and thereafter, the services of the petitioner dispensed with. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is without any merit. The petitioner has sought to project before this Court that the enquiry was not fair and proper. However, apart from merely raising the contention the same has not been fortified by any substantive material from where such an inference can be derived. In Annexure P-5 which has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it does not in any way enhance the case of the petitioner for a simple reason that in this document even though the petitioner raises concern about the enquiry officer, yet the prayer made in this is merely to have the proceedings on some other date. In the absence of any material which would show that the enquiry was not fair and proper, I am not inclined to upset the findings recorded by the Tribunal more so when the charges against the petitioner are extremely serious. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then contended that there was no evidence to suggest that the security guard had been assaulted as there is no medical evidence to show any injuries on the person of said guard. I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misplaced for the reason that even if injuries had not been caused but if a person had been Civil Writ Petition No. 8967of 1993 4 assaulted in some violence or indiscipline in the precincts of the area where he has been employed that itself is sufficient to justify an action of an employer against the employee which may include termination of services and the employee has no right to create any indiscipline at the place of his work. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. [MAHESH GROVER] JUDGE 26th April, 2011 Shivani Kaushik