C.W.P. No. 1764 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1764 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: 4.5.2011 Shri Ram Phal ..PETITIONER VS. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another. ..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. *** JUDGMENT: In the instant writ petition challenge is to the award dated 3.5.1991 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak by dint of which the claim raised by the petitioner-workman of re-instatement into service with continuity and back wages, has been turned down. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute challenging the order of his termination dated 24.10.1988 on the ground that he served the management since 1.1.1976 without there being any complaint against him, but the management without complying with the provisions of law, terminated his service. According to him the enquiry conducted into the matter prior to his termination of his service was conducted in a sheer disregard to the principles of natural justice and also on the false and baseless charges. The respondent management contested the claim of the C.W.P. No. 1764 of 1992 2 workman on the ground that since the workman was found guilty of the charges of mis-conduct, insubordination, misbehaviour with other employees and engaging in the other business despite in service of the management, which is in violation of Standing Orders, his services were dispensed with after following due procedure wherein he not only was charge-sheeted but also after conducting an enquiry into the matter. Since there was dispute as to the validity of the enquiry conducted into the matter, the learned Tribunal treated the issue regarding fair and proper enquiry, as preliminary one and on the strength of evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner. Thereafter, both the parties were again directed to lead their respective evidence which they did and on conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal concluded that the workman not only remained unauthorizedly absent for about 30 days from April 1988 to October 1988 and indulges in the business of tailoring in utter violation of the Standing Orders, therefore, his termination was held to be legal one. Accordingly, the reference was declined. Dis-satisfied with the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the paper book carefully. Admittedly, there are certified standing orders of the respondent-management and clause 15 thereof provides for disciplinary action for mis-conduct. Sub-clause (x) thereof creates a bar on engaging any trade, holding meetings, religious, political or otherwise, demonstrating raising slogans, distributing or displaying handbills, pamphlets or posters or C.W.P. No. 1764 of 1992 3 collecting subscription or any money on indulging in union activity inside the establishment premises. Further sub-clause (xxviii) prohibits engaging in other employment whilst in service. Though, sub-clause (x) is not applicable to the petitioner in strict sense, but sub-clause (xxviii) applies to him, the violation of which was found against the petitioner. Though, an attempt has been made on his behalf to say that the evidence adduced on record did not prove that the petitioner is gainfully employed elsewhere, apart from the serving the management, but from a perusal of Para No.6 of the instant writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner has not seriously disputed of his being carrying the tailoring job. Not only this, the evidence of record also spells out the owning of tailoring shop by the petitioner. Thus, there is clear violation of sub-clause (xxviii) by the petitioner. Further sub-clause (vi) of the certified standing orders also provides that if a workman remains absent from duty for five days or more without leave during the period of six calendar months then the absence shall be treated as misconduct. As per evidence adduced on record, the absence period of the petitioner runs for thirty and half days from April, 1988 to October, 1988 and the same has not been properly explained by him. No evidence, worth of any credence, was adduced by him to prove that his daughter and uncle remained ill and died, to whom he allegedly attended during the aforesaid period. Rather the evidence produced by the respondent management is suggestive of the fact that during the absence period he used to work on his shop. Thus, holding the violation of certified standing orders by the petitioner, his services were rightly terminated. The learned Tribunal while taking into consideration all these facts, rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner-workman. While exercising C.W.P. No. 1764 of 1992 4 the writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court. Even otherwise, this Court is satisfied that on the basis of evidence on record, the Labour Court has arrived at certain findings of fact, which are neither perverse nor based on no evidence. In these circumstances, it would not be possible to interfere with the award given by the Labour Court The petition is wholly without merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 04,2011 Jiten