IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9781 of 2000 Date of decision:25.09.2009 The State of Punjab and others …Petitioners Versus Gurmej Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. A.P.S.Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.1 ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The award under challenge is a direction for reinstatement with half the back wages preceding one year from the date of the award. The case presents a curious set of facts of an Enquiry Officer, who was appointed to examine the misconduct, returned a finding of not guilty, but the management directed the workman to show cause why action shall not be taken against him in terms of the enquiry report. The management itself had not chosen to set aside the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The show cause notice had been issued on 01.12.1980 affording 15 days to respond, but even before the completion of 15 days, an order was passed terminating the services of the workman on 11.12.1980. At every turn, therefore, it could be seen, the management was at fault. It Civil Writ Petition No.9781 of 2000 - 2 - was only in the ultimate order of dismissal the management purported to have differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. If the management had differed with the Enquiry Officer's report, such a decision must have been taken and then only show cause notice could have been issued. The workman could not have been called upon to show cause against a proposed punitive action when there was no finding against him even by the Enquiry Officer. 2. Even before the Labour Court, the management had not attempted to prove the misconduct. It rest contended with mere production of the Enquiry Officer's file. The Labour Court observed that the burden of establishing the guilt was only on the management and had not let in any evidence, but, however, held that there was a case of bilateral misconduct of both the workman and the management. It, therefore, proceeded to set aside the order of removal from service and directed reinstatement with continuity of service. It had also observed that the punishment of removal was too harsh for a mere unauthorized absence from duty. Even this reference about “unauthorized absence” from duty, the Labour Court ought not to have made for no attempt was made by the management to prove such unauthorized absence. 3. The prosecution of the writ petition itself was not a bona fide exercise. Even the subsequent events would show that the workman was permitted to be reinstated on 06.07.1999 after the award, and also retired from service 10 days later on 16.07.1999 on the ground of medical unfitness. The workman was also allowed to obtain the terminal benefits. To persist in reopening of the issue and seeking for a fresh Civil Writ Petition No.9781 of 2000 - 3 - adjudication now is meaningless. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- assessed as payable to the workman. (K.KANNAN) 25.09.2009 JUDGE sanjeev