LPA No. 577 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 577 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 10 .11.2010 State of Haryana ... Appellant Versus Satbir Singh and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG Hy for the appellant Mr. J.K.Goel, Advocate for respondent no.1 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed by the State of Haryana under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 11.11.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and upholding the award of the Labour Court with a modification of reducing the payment of back wages to 50 %. The Labour Court has categorically found that the enquiry conducted by the appellant- State had not been fair and proper. Despite opportunities given by the Labour Court it did not avail the opportunity to adduce its evidence for proving the mis-conduct of the workman- respondent. Accordingly the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the workman respondent with full back wages. However, the award of the Labour Court was challenged by the appellant- state. The payment of back wages to the extent of 50% were stayed by interim order which continued till the disposal of the writ petition . The workman had retired in the LPA No. 577 of 2010 2 meanwhile on 30.6.2009. The learned Single Judge after noticing the findings recorded by the Labour Court held that once the enquiry has not been fair and proper then the reinstatement is the normal relief particularly when the workman had retired on 30.6.2009. The learned Single Judge has also upheld the grant of back wages but has reduced the same to the extent of 50% till the date of the award of the Labour Court but the workman- respondent has been held entitled to full wages from the date of award till the date of his superannuation with all retiral benefits in accordance with law. Having heard the learned State counsel as well as the counsel for the respondent-workman, we are of the view that no legal infirmity in the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge could be found. It was sought to be argued by the learned State counsel that in the past also there have been allegations of embezzlement and the workman- respondent has been removed from service earlier as well. We are not impressed with the aforesaid contention. If the old record of an employee is to be made basis for enhancing his punishment then it should have been placed either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Labour Court. Such a record cannot be taken into account at the back of the workman- respondent. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge ( Ritu Bahri ) 10.11.2010 Judge okg