IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.7608 of 2001 Date of Decision:- 30.01.2009 Transport Commissioner, Haryana Chandigarh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. Dharam Pal and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Through the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 14.12.2000 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court wherein the workman-Dharam Pal (since deceased and now represented through his legal heirs) was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that a fair and proper enquiry was held against the workman and it is only thereafter that the services of the workman were terminated. An appeal preferred by the workman was also dismissed by the appellate Authority whereafter he had approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the enquiry was not in accordance with law and, therefore, has held the termination of the workman not as per the Rules. He further contends that C.W.P.No.7608 of 2001 -2- even if the enquiry was held to be not in accordance with the Service Rules governing the procedure of holding an enquiry then also the record of the enquiry being available on record, the same ought to have been taken into consideration by the Labour Court while coming to a decision whether the allegations levelled against the workman stood proved or not. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason that once the Labour Court has held that the enquiry proceedings were not in accordance with law, the enquiry report, as such, loses its significance and therefore, the Court cannot by any stretch of imagination, rely upon the same to find out whether the charges levelled against the workman stood proved or not. Onus was on the petitioner- Management to produce additional evidence to prove the charges against the workman which they have failed to produce. It has come on record that no evidence was produced which would prove any of the allegations so levelled against the workman. Even the complainant Sunder Singh, was not examined which could prove that the allegations so made against the workman, actually existed. That being the position, no illegality can be found in the impugned award and, therefore, the same calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Finding no merit in this writ petition, the same stands dismissed. January 30, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No