CWP No. 16796 of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16796 of 1997 Date of decision: 29.05.2009 R.K.Shahi son of Sogarth Shahi and others .....PETITIONERS VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. N.D.Kalra, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 10.09.1996 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Labour Court, U.T.Chandigarh, vide which the reference has been answered against the workmen on the ground that the order of termination is justified. Counsel for the petitioners-workmen contends that vide order CWP No. 16796 of 1997 2 dated 01.11.1994, the Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted by the Management against the workman was not in accordance with law and it stood vitiated and opportunity was given to the Management to produce evidence in support of the charges levelled against the workmen. He submits that after the case was fixed for this purpose, both the parties did not lead any fresh evidence and had submitted that the evidence led by them earlier be taken into consideration for deciding the case on merits. On the basis of this, the Labour Court has proceeded to decide the matter. He challenges the findings given by the Labour Court on the ground that once the enquiry proceedings held against the workmen were found to be not in consonance with the principles of natural justice and the same stood vitiated, the evidence, which has been led on that basis, cannot be taken into consideration for proceeding to decide the award on merits. He states that on this ground alone, the award deserves to be set aside as no fresh evidence was led by the Management to justify the order of termination. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the workman was with regard to manhandling and use of filthy language against the Store Keeper Sh. Gian Chand. The evidence, which was led by the Management, was of only two other co-employees, whereas as per the allegations, there were a large number of workers also present at the spot, when the said incident took place. He submits that no other witnesses except for Vinod Rattan MW-1, who was the Sales Representative and Gian Chand-complainant MW-2, the Store Keeper were produced before the Labour Court. He, on this basis, submits that no independent witness was examined by the Management before the Labour Court and, therefore, this evidence could not have been relied upon to hold that such an incidence, for which order of punishment was passed against CWP No. 16796 of 1997 3 the workman, had indeed taken place. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that only one issue was framed by the Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, which read as follows:- “Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally by the respondent-Management, if so its effect and to what relief the workman is entitled to, if any.” The parties, on the basis of this issue, proceeded to lead their oral and documentary evidence. It is after the completion of evidence, the Labour Court proceeded to decide the question with regard to validity of the enquiry proceedings held against the workmen. He further submits that it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to now submit that the earlier evidence, which has been led by the Management, cannot be taken into consideration for deciding the matter on merits. Further, an application dated 19.09.1995 was moved before the Labour Court by the Management praying therein for treating evidence of MW-1 Sh. Vinod Rattan, Sales Representative and MW-2 Gian Chand, Store Keeper and other documentary evidence already produced before the Labour Court, as evidence on merits of the case. On notice having been issued of the said application to the petitioners, the Authorized Representative of the workmen stated that he had no objection to treating of the evidence already led by the Management on merits of the case as well. On the basis of the said statement, the application of the Management was allowed by the Labour Court vide order dated 28.09.1995. He, on this basis, submits that the evidence was already on record, which the Labour Court has, in view of CWP No. 16796 of 1997 4 the above position, taken into consideration to come to a conclusion that the order of termination of the workmen was fully justified as the allegations of mis-conduct stood proved against the workmen. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In view of the statement made by the Authorized Representative of the workmen before the Labour Court on an application moved by the Management for treating evidence of Sh. Vinod Rattan MW-1 and Gian Chand MW-2, which was produced before the Labour Court prior to the decision on the issue of validity of enquiry proceedings and treating the same on merits, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. The order dated 28.09.1995 reads as follows:- “Present: Mr. H.S.Bath, for workman Sh. Basur, Advocate, for the respondent. Reply has not been filed on behalf of workmen. Shri Bath in fact has no objection to the treatment of evidence already led by the Management on merits of the case also. He, however, seeks opportunity to produce evidence on merit. To come up for evidence of workmen on merits of the case on 3.11.1995.” In view of the above, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners with regard to non-production of any evidence after the order dated 01.11.1994 (Annexure P-1) and consideration of the earlier lead evidence by the parties before the Labour Court, vitiating the award cannot be accepted. CWP No. 16796 of 1997 5 The contention of the counsel for the petitioners with regard to non-production of any other evidence except for two witnesses i.e. Vinod Rattan MW-1 and Gian Chand MW-2 also cannot be accepted as it is not a criminal proceeding before the Labour Court. The purpose and effect of criminal proceedings and civil proceedings are totally different and so are the consequences. The nature of evidence, the appreciation thereof and the effect is different, the considerations as well are different and so is the weightage. In criminal proceedings, the charges are to be proved beyond doubt, whereas in departmental proceedings, the proof, which is required to be given, is with regard to the mis-conduct having been committed by the workmen. That being the position, the Labour Court has, on the basis of the evidence, which has been led by the Management and on appreciation thereof, come to a definite conclusion that the mis-conduct, as committed by the workmen, stood proved against him. The statements given by the witnesses of the Management leaves no manner of doubt with regard to the incidence taking place, where the workmen-petitioners manhandled, thrashed badly, gave threat to his life and used abusive language against Gian Chand, Store Keeper MW-2, who is a stamped witness and Vinod Rattan MW-1 Sales Representative, who is an eye witness. The same having been proved before the Labour Court by way of evidence led and produced by the Management, the order of termination passed against the workmen stood fully justified. In the case in hand, the Labour Court has rightly not exercised its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to interfere with the punishment, as such type of rowdy behaviour, gross indiscipline and hullabaloo in work place is not acceptable and if not curbed, would disturb the Industrial peace and harmony and would thus be CWP No. 16796 of 1997 6 contrary to the aims and objects for which the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was enacted. The Labour Courts should refrain itself from interfering with the punishment in such like cases, as the present one, merely on misplaced sympathy and leniency. Finding no illegality in the impugned award dated 10.09.1996 passed by the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh (Annexure P-2), the present writ petition stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 29, 2009 pj Whether referred to Reporters..............Yes/No.