LPA No.393 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.393 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7.12.2010 Hansraj ..Appellant Versus The Haryana Diary Development Cooperative Federation Limited and another ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. P.K.Chugh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Anil Kumar Gehlawat, Advocate for respondent No.1. 1. To be referred to the Reports or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 21.1.2010 passed by the Learned Single Judge setting aside award dated 4.8.1999 (P-6) rendered by the Labour Court, Faridabad. The basic reason for setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court, as disclosed in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, is that the Labour Court had set aside the order of dismissal of the workman-appellant on the ground that service of summons was not effected on him during the enquiry proceedings before the Inquiry Officer. However, the learned Single Judge recorded a categorical finding that at no stage the workman-appellant absented himself from the inquiry proceedings and fully participated in the same. It has further been found that in any case, no prejudice was caused to the workman on account of non service of summons; which could constitute a basis for setting aside LPA No.393 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the order of dismissal passed against the workman-appellant. A perusal of the award of the Labour Court would show that notice regarding inquiry was served upon the workman-appellant through Sarpanch of village Maujri, Post Office Ballabgarh, a factor which weighed with the Labour Court. The Labour Court felt that it created a doubt about the authenticity of the inquiry proceedings because the Sarpanch of the village was biased against the workman-appellant and inquiry proceeding was conducted against him at the instance of the Sarpanch. Another reason revealed in the award of the Labour Court that inquiry proceeding was conducted against the workman-appellant on the basis of the charge sheet dated 21.5.1990, whereas the order terminating his service (Ex. M-9) would show that termination was the result of the charge sheet dated 11.5.1990. The basis that charge sheet is different than the one on which inquiry was conducted, the Labour Court entertained another serious doubt with regard to inquiry proceedings and therefore held that consequential order of termination passed by the Punishing Authority is vitiated and it set aside the same. Mr. P.K.Chugh, learned counsel for the workman-appellant has made submissions on 16.11.2010 highlighting that the services of the workman-appellant were terminated on the basis of charge sheet dated 11.5.1990, whereas inquiry proceedings were not conducted against him on the basis of that charge sheet. According to the learned counsel, the inquiry proceedings were conducted on the basis of the charge sheet dated 21.5.1990. In order to satisfy ourselves, we sent for the original record, which has been requisitioned and produced before us. Learned counsel for the management-respondent has also produced before us photo copies of the various documents. He has explained that in the order of termination dated 13.5.1991 on account of clerical mistakes, the date of charge sheet LPA No.393 of 2010 (O&M) 3 is incorrectly mentioned to be 11.5.1990. According to the learned counsel, it is only a clerical mistake and there is only one charge sheet. He has maintained that the workman-appellant is making an attempt to thrive upon the aforesaid clerical mistake, which is impermissible and on that basis, the inquiry proceedings could not be vitiated. A perusal of Ex. M-1 would show that a Memorandum was issued to the workman-appellant on 21.5.1990, which bears Memo No. MPF/Estt/E-1/90/1190 dated 21.5.1990. There is only one charge sheet and clerical mistake can not be made the basis for quashing the order of termination. Therefore, we do not find that anything would hinge upon these arguments that there were two different charge sheets. In any case, the learned Single Judge has left all the issues open and has held that merely because service was not effected through the Sarpanch would not be sufficient reason to constitute a basis for setting aside the order of termination of the workman-appellant. The matter has been remanded back to the Labour Court for adjudication of the various issues on merit which could not be gone into on account of the aforesaid preliminary findings. Therefore, the appeal does not merit admission and the view taken by the learned Single Judge deserves to be upheld. For the foregoing reasons, appeal is dismissed. We make it clear that it shall be open to the Labour Court to examine all other issues as has been directed by the learned Single Judge. Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the controversy. Appeal stands disposed of. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( RITU BAHRI ) 7.12.2010 JUDGE VK