C.W.P. No.8103 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8103 of 1989 Date of Decision: 09.12.2009 Shamsher Singh (through LRs) ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ambala and another ....Respondent Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate with Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2. 2. C.W.P. No.10426 of 1990 Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited (Distillery Unit), Panipat through its Managing Director ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ambala and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate with Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. None 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 two writ petitions arise out of the same award. C.W.P. No.10426 of 1990 is against the direction contained in the C.W.P. No.8103 of 1989 -2- award for reinstatement of the workman and C.W.P. No.8103 against the denial of back wages to the workman. By the impugned award, the workman had the benefit of the Enquiry Officer's report and the dismissal order set aside and he was directed to be reinstated on a finding that the enquiry had not been fair and proper and on a further finding that the misconduct attributed to the workman had not been established. 2. The charge against the workman was that the workman while he was in duty in the Distillery between 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. on 13.09.1982 was found under the effect of liquor around 11.45 A.M. and he had been immediately medically examined by the mill doctor at 12.15 P.M. and on the basis of the doctor's report, the charge-sheet had been levied against him. The workman denied the charge and in the enquiry before the Enquiry Officer, the doctor was examined to testify to his own report and a management witness, who spoke about the presence of workman and the misconduct found at the spot. The workman had given his own statement and the Enquiry Officer ultimately returned a finding of guilt that culminated in a decision of the management to terminate the services. 3. Before the Labour Court, on a reference sought at the instance of the workman, the Labour Court found that the workman had worked for the whole day and if he had been found under the effect of liquor in the morning at 11.45 A.M., he could C.W.P. No.8103 of 1989 -3- not have worked for the whole day and drawn his wages also. The Labour Court was under the impression that the workman was not found in the place of work and since it was established that he had continued for the whole day and drawn also his wages, the assumed absence of the workman was not established. The assumption of the Labour Court was wholly without basis, for it was not a charge against the workman that the workman had remained absent for any part of the day from his place of work. The only charge was that he was found under the effect of liquor at the place of work. 4. The Enquiry Officer had considered the report of the Medical Officer, who had immediately examined the workman. The Labour Court chose to make a sweeping observation that the enquiry had not been fair and proper on a finding that a copy of the medical report had not been given to the workman. This is again a wrong line of reasoning by the Labour Court because the charge-sheet refers to the fact that the doctor had examined him immediately and the doctor himself had been examined before the Enquiry Officer and his report had been marked as Ex.M-4. Nothing appears to have been elicited in the cross-examination of the doctor that the report was wrong. If the document was exhibited before the Enquiry Officer and the workman had an opportunity to cross-examine the doctor, it will not avail to the workman to contend that copy of the report had not been given to C.W.P. No.8103 of 1989 -4- him and therefore, he could not effectively defend himself. The document was relied on and it was on appreciation of the evidence of the doctor and the report that the ultimate finding of guilt was returned by the Enquiry Officer. There was nothing amiss in the report of the Enquiry Officer and nothing had been also brought out before the Labour Court that the enquiry was not fair and proper. If the correctness of the enquiry as regards the procedure or the substantive aspect of consideration of evidence cannot be faulted, then the decision of the management to dismiss him from service for being found in a state of drunkenness in the factory cannot be faulted. 5. The award of the Labour Court is erroneous and it is set aside. The writ petition in C.W.P. No.10426 of 1990 filed by the management assailing the order of the reinstatement is allowed. The writ petition in C.W.P. No.8103 of 1989 filed by the workman challenging refusal to award back wages is dismissed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 09, 2009 Pankaj*