C.W.P. No.9733 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.9733 of 2004 Decided on :01-12-2008 Nagar Panchayat, Malaud (Ludhiana) ......Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana & another ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- Present:- Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sarwan Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Hemant Gupta, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award of the Labour Court dated 7.01.2004 (Annexure P1), whereby an Industrial Dispute raised by respondent No.2(hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was answered in favour of the workman and the punishment of termination was substituted to that of denial of back wages. It is the case of the petitioner that the workman was found in drunkard condition when checking was made by the President of the Nagar Panchayat on 27.10.2000 at about 10.15 p.m. On the basis of the admission of the workman regarding his guilt, a Resolution was passed by the Nagar Panchayat for termination of the services of the workman. C.W.P. No.9733 of 2004 -2- The learned Labour Court found that the workman was found sleeping under the influence of liquor, which is admitted by the workman, therefore, there was no necessity to issue any charge sheet or to hold an inquiry. It was held that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct and consequently, ordered for reinstatement, but denied back wages from the date of termination. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the workman was earlier also found in drunkard condition. The workman has confessed his guilt and promised not to repeat the misconduct. Ex.M- 7, is the copy of the order in respect of incident which happened three years earlier than the date of alleged present occurrence. It is also contended that the workman is habitual of violating the discipline and thus, is not entitled to the discretion exercised by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman has pointed out that the petitioner was found under the influence of liquor at 10.15 P.M. i.e. after he completed his duty hours, which were from 2 to 5 P.M. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the Labour Court should not be interfered in writ jurisdiction of this Court. The fact that the workman was found under the influence of liquor after the duty hours, is not in dispute. The proximity of time with the duty hours and when he was found under the influence of liquor, are indicative of the misconduct committed by the workman. The learned Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction in reducing the punishment and such discretion cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary or unjustified C.W.P. No.9733 of 2004 -3- which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. (Hemant Gupta) Judge 1st December 2008. (Nawab Singh) Monika Judge