IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4455 of 2009 . Date of Decision : March 21, 2009. Ramesh Kumar. ...... Petitioner. Versus. State of Haryana and others. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 24.07.2007 (Annexure-P-8), vide which the reference which has been made to the Labour Court, has been answered against the petitioner-workman. The Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the inquiry held against the petitioner-workman was in consonance with the statutory rules governing the service and has further exercising its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act looked into the aspect with regard to quantum of punishment meted out to the petitioner-workman and concluded that there was no scope for interference by the Labour Court in the light of the fact that as many as 20 punishments were imposed upon the petitioner-workman in the last 19 years of service which included warnings, censures, stoppage of increments with and without cumulative effect and the recovery etc. Apart from the charges which have been proved against the petitioner-workman, i.e. absence from duty for which the punishment of dismissal was inflicted upon the petitioner-workman. Counsel for the petitioner-workman vehemently argued that the petitioner-workman was not served during the inquiry proceedings and C.W.P. No. 4455 of 2009. therefore, could not participate in the inquiry. He further contends that the findings which have been recorded by the Enquiry Officer, is solely based on one witness Govind Lal and no corroborate evidence has been led by the respondent-management. He contends that the petitioner-workman had 19 years of service with the respondent-management but still punishment of dismissal has been granted to him. He prays for a lenient view in the matter so that some pensionary benefits could be given to the petitioner-workman. I have heard counsel for the petitioner-workman and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the award shows that the Traffic Manager was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry on the allegations levelled against the petitioner-workman. The Enquiry Officer issued letter dated 20.10.2000, copy whereof has been exhibited as Ex.M.6 alongwith an acknowledgment E.x.M.7 where the signatures of the petitioner-workman stands implanted. This factual aspect has not been disputed by the petitioner-workman and in this view of the admission made by the petitioner, the contention of counsel for the petitioner-workman that the petitioner-workman was not served during the inquiry proceedings, cannot be accepted. Left with no option, the Enquiry Officer had to proceed with the inquiry ex-parte against the petitioner-workman. The other contention of counsel for the petitioner-workman that the statement of only one witness i.e. Govind Lal was relied upon who was the sole witness, cannot also be accepted as there is no bar on relying upon the solitary statement if the same is trustworthy and reliable. Apart from that Govind Lal was the person who was the duty clerk and who had reported the matter to the respondent-management regarding willful absence of the petitioner-workman from duty, he therefore, was a person who was -2- C.W.P. No. 4455 of 2009. well versed with the records of the case. The Labour Court has taken into consideration the length of service of the petitioner-workman while exercising its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and dealing with the inquiry, punishment of dismissal was given to the petitioner-workman. While doing so, not only the Labour Court has taken into consideration the factual aspect of the present case but has also seen the service record of the petitioner-workman. Counsel for the petitioner-workman has pressed for grant of pensionary benefits in the light of 19 years service of the petitioner- workman but keeping in view the fact that the following punishments were given to the petitioner-workman which are reproduced herein below, no lenient view in the present case can be taken as during the period of 19 years of service, the petitioner-workman has been inflicted 20 punishments :- Five warning, seven censures, five increments stoppage without cumulative effect, two increments stoppage with cumulative effect and the recovery of Rs. 16,854/-. All these factors having been taken into consideration by the Labour Court and coming to a conclusion that the punishment meted out to the petitioner-workman, is fully justified and in consonance with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and Punishing Authority, this Court also reiterates the same.. No illegality has been committed by the Labour Court in passing the award which is impugned herein. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 21, 2009. sjks. -3-