LPA No. 1211 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 1211 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.03.2010 Banarsi Lal ....Appellant. Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. Appellant is assailing order dated 7.8.2009 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby dismissing the writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court refusing to interfere with the termination order. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner had joined service in the year 1974 as a conductor in the Punjab Roadways. In December, 1990, the petitioner was placed under suspension having been found charging fare from the passengers without issuing them tickets. His services were terminated on 26.7.1993. The petitioner submitted his claim LPA No. 1211 of 2009 2 before the Labour Court, Jalandhar on 9.9.1998. The Labour Court refused to interfere with the termination order, hence writ petition was filed, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 7.8.2009. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. The Labour Court has recorded finding as under: - “Needless to repeat it here again, respondent – department by leading documentary as well as oral evidence has sufficiently convinced the Court that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was as per the principles of natural justice and he was given full opportunity to defend himself and no fault can be found in the domestic enquiry or in the impugned order vide which the services of the workman were terminated. This issue in the light of aforesaid discussion therefore, stands decided against the workman and in favour of the respondent.” 5. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition having observed that first of all, reference was filed after nearly five years from the date of termination and secondly, on the ground that charges against the petitioner were correctly found to be proved by the Labour Court. Learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Uttranchal Pradesh Corporation Vs. Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 129. In the matter before the Apex Court, charges against the conductor were almost similar. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any perversity or illegality in the view taken by the Labour Court as well as by LPA No. 1211 of 2009 3 learned Single Judge. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, argued that punishment awarded to the appellant is more severe then the charges leveled against him. According to the learned counsel for the appellant more fare charged by the appellant was under the confusion and for that termination is not required. 8. We do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Charging fare without issuing tickets or charging more fare from the passengers is not only misconduct but also a fraud with the public at large. The appellant is not entitled to any sympathy. 9. We are not inclined to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 26.03.2010 sk.