C.W.P No.12932 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.12932 of 1999 Date of Decision: 31.07.2009 Dal Chand .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Karnal and another ....Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate with Mr. S.S. Sudan, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The challenge in the writ petition is to the award of the Labour Court rejecting the reference sought by the workman for adjudication whether the termination of service of the workman was legal and justified. 2. The writ petition had been filed in the year 1999 and admitted after notice to the respondent on 17.01.2001. For non- prosecution of the petition by the petitioner, it was dismissed on 26.02.2002. It was restored on an application when no objection had been raised by the respondent on 03.07.2002 and it was again dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.08.2006. The writ petition was again restored on an application on 15.12.2006 and when it was C.W.P No.12932 of 1999 -2- posted for hearing, again there is no representation for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent is present and with his assistance, I have gone through all the relevant records and I have proceeded to decide the case on its merits. 3. The case of the petitioner was that he had been appointed as a Boiler Operator with 2nd respondent on 28.01.1992 and he had been a participant in the general strike that was called in that area including 2nd respondent's mill between 21.12.1993 to 23.12.1993. The allegation against the workman came through a charge that he had been responsible for causing sabotage to machinery, that resulted in the disrepair of the machinery at the 2nd respondent's mill and it took 9 to 10 days before the mill was put to operation. A charge-sheet had been sent on 07.06.1994 that detailed the description of sabotage and extent of damages:- “1. Took out and hid the nut bolts of the gayer boxes of the boiler. 2. Took out and hid the seats of valves of Boiler. 3. The boiler was obstructed by putting plates in the fuel system. 4. Leaked the heater by overheating the boiler. 5. Obstructed the water supply system of the boiler. 6. Damaged the chimney of the boiler. 7. Helped in breaking the drums of the Huksar. 8. Hid the nut bolts and separated the sheller from petty and helped in hiding the plastic plates. 9. Broke the blowers which pack the covers and plates were damaged.” 4. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and an enquiry was C.W.P No.12932 of 1999 -3- constituted. Witnesses had been examined both by the management as well as by the workman and the Enquiry Officer addressed his findings with reference to the case of intentionally and voluntarily damaging the company property, absence from duty, intimidating and threatening co-workers, holding illegal activities, causing financial losses and creating hindrance in daily routine affairs of the company and defaming the reputation of the company. On the most substantial charge about the sabotage purported to have been done by the workman, the management had examined the Mill Supervisor, Sh. M.C. Gupta and Electrician, Sh. Om Parkash. The Supervisor had given evidence that he was a witness to the workman and other persons involving in the act of damaging the plant and machinery. The incident was reported to have taken place on 20.12.1993, the day before when the strike commenced. There had been also some damages to the boiler and being a Boiler Operator, the imputation against him was that he was the only one who was capable of making the damage of obstructing the boiler by putting the plates in the fuel system, creating leakage by overheating the boiler, obstructing the water supply system and damaging the chimney of the boiler. The other charges relating to how he had incited the other workers to unruly conduct were also found, on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry officer, to have been established. Based on the Enquiry Officer's report, after a show cause notice issued by the management, an order of termination was passed which was the subject of challenge before the Labour Court. 5. The Labour Court directed itself to a preliminary issue C.W.P No.12932 of 1999 -4- whether the enquiry had been properly conducted and had also framed the issue about the validity of the order of termination. Adverting to the conduct of enquiry, the Labour Court found the procedural formalities had been duly followed such as affording to the workman a right to carry on the proceedings in Hindi in the language as desired by the workman, permitting witnesses to be examined and cross- examined before a report was given. The workman had also been afforded an opportunity to show cause notice against the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges had been fully established. Even while dealing with the issue of fairness in the enquiry, the Labour Court had dealt with the evidence that had been placed before the Enquiry Officer and on the due consideration of the statement of witnesses, the Labour Court observed that in the absence of any material to doubt the fairness and propriety of the procedure as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer, found that punishment accorded to the workman for the seriousness of the misconduct to be just and proper. 6. The award of the Labour Court considers the case in all its details that are necessary to be adverted and I find no reason to take a decision upsetting the factual rendering made by the Labour Court. The writ petition is without merit and it is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 31, 2009 Pankaj*