Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2009 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2009 Date of decision: 06.07.2009 *** Love Parkash ...Appellant Versus M/s Bhartiya Culter Hammer Ltd. and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Manoj Sood, Advocate for the appellant ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The services of the appellant, then in the employment of respondent no.1, were terminated following his indictment in a domestic enquiry which upheld the allegations that the appellant-workman had hurled abuses upon Shri J.P.Sharma, a senior Officer of the Company. At the instance of the appellant-complainant, the matter pertaining to the justification or otherwise of the termination of his services was referred to the learned Labour Court which answered the reference against the workman. The appellant-workman challenged the award by filing a Civil Writ Petition which came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2009 -2- ***** Court vide judgment dated 12.1.2009. In the course of the order, the learned Single Judge drew sustenance from the fact that the appellant- workman had been validly indicted in a domestic enquiry and further that the charge was supported by not only by the statement of Shri J.P.Sharma complainant but also by that of Shri Anil Kumar and Shri R.D.Sharma who had appeared at the domestic enquiry and their testimony was supportive of the charge against the appellant. Having upheld the validity of the indictment aforementioned, the learned Single Judge also negatived the appellant's plea that the learned Labour Court had not exercised its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act while adjudicating upon the quantum of punishment. In obtaining that view, the learned Single Judge noticed that “the record of the workman has also been looked into and reference to the past record of the workman relating to absence from the duty and less production, which have been amply proved from the documents Ex. M-10 to M-17 has been made.”. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant- workman, argues that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the testimony of the complainant-officer was supported by two other witnesses is factually incorrect inasmuch as no witness had made a statement supportive of the stance narrated by the complainant Shri J.P.Sharma. Annexure P-7 is the statement made by the complainant Shri J.P.Sharma at the domestic enquiry. In the course thereof, he made a precise statement attributing the hurling of abuses at him to the appellant. He was equally categorical in averring the date and timing of the episode. Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2009 -3- ***** He further testified that he had made a grievance of the episode to Mr. R.D.Sharma whom he visited immediately after the impugned incident. He further testified that the appellant held out a threat to him even when the former was in the process of narrating the impugned episode to Mr. R.D.Sharma. A copy of the statement made by Shri R.D.Sharma is not a part of the paper-book. However, a photo-copy thereof was shown to us by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. We find that the statement made by Shri R.D.Sharma is fully corroborative of the role attributed to him by the complainant Shri J.P.Sharma. Apart therefrom, we find that the learned Single Judge had noticed the respective contentions raised on behalf of the appellant in their relatability to the material obtaining on the file and had disagreed with the appellant on merits and had further recorded a finding on perusal of the service record of the appellant, that the imposition of penalty of termination could not be faulted. The other grievance put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned domestic enquiry is vitiated inasmuch as it had been conducted by the own Legal Advisor of the management. The learned counsel has, however, not been able to invite our attention to any plea regarding malafides on the part of the Enquiry Officer which (malafides) could have actuated him to act in favour of the management or act in a biased manner against the appellant. It cannot, thus, be an acceptable proposition that a domestic enquiry would be invalidated merely because it had been conducted by an Officer/Legal Advisor of the management. It will be particularly so when there is not even an averment Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2009 -4- ***** that the principles of natural justice and fair play had been violated by the learned Enquiry Officer in any manner. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is fully in order. We do not find any infirmity in the course thereof. The appeal is ordered to be dismissed in limine. (S.D.ANAND) JUDGE July 06, 2009 (J.S.KHEHAR) Pka JUDGE