C.W.P. No.1187 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.1187 of 1988 Date of Decision:07.11.2008 Dev Raj Mahajan .....Petitioner Vs. M/s Babu Ram Nagar Mal, Fruit Merchants, Commission Agents & Military Contractors, Sabji Mandi, Pathankot and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Dev Raj Mahajan under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the Labour Court dated 18.2.1987 Annexure P.11. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner- workman joined the firm of M/s Babu Ram Nagar Mal- respondent as Accountant with effect from 1.6.1964 on the pay of Rs.200-250/-. He was drawing Rs.550/- at the time, when his services were dispensed with by the Management. The Management issued reference dated 13.8.1981 to the workman to the effect that he was absent from duty without obtaining any proper leave in writing since 16.7.1981. The Management further directed him to report for his duty within three days from the date of receipt of the notice and to explain why disciplinary action for remaining absent from duty without getting proper leave sanctioned could not be taken against him. C.W.P. No.1187 of 1988 -2- In case he failed to give reply, it will be presumed that he was intentionally absenting himself from duties and in that case, the Management would proceed to take disciplinary action against him. He submitted his reply that the letter bearing date 13.8.1981 was not posted in time, so the same was received by him on 18.8.1981. With regards to his absence, he explained that he was not absent from duties. He had applied leave orally and the permission was granted. He availed casual leave from 16.7.1981 and 17.7.1981 after getting its sanction orally from the Management. When he reported for duty on 18.7.1981, he was not allowed to join the duties. As a matter of fact, the Management did not want to continue with him. The Management waited nearly for one month to inform the workman about his absence. The objection of the Management was not that he did not obtain leave but was that he did not obtain proper leave in writing. When he reported for duty on 19.8.1981, the Management refused to entertain him. His explanation has not been considered legally by the Management and the same was rejected on 19.8.1981 without applying quasi-judicial mind. The Management appointed Shri Raman Kumar Puri, Advocate as the Inqiury Officer. He requested to the Inquiry Officer on 4.10.1981 for permission to appear through counsel which was declined. Even the permission to bring the co-worker as Defence Assistant was also refused. The Inquiry Officer did not supply proceedings of the inquiry to the workman. The Management terminated his services vide order dated 12.12.1981 without issuing the show cause notice and without supplying copy of the inquiry report. The impugned award is liable to be quashed for the reasons embodied in this petition. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. C.W.P. No.1187 of 1988 -3- I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner argued that the Management had issued the charge-sheet to the workman on the strength of misconduct, which did not fall within the definition of major misconduct and the extreme penalty of dismissal from service without taking into consideration his past conduct could not be legally imposed. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court did not look into the provisions of Section 11-A of the Inudstrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, `the Act'). The Inquiry Officer was a man of the Management, change of which was sought by the workman but the same was arbitrarily rejected. The request of the workman to seek the assistance of a co-worker has also been refused by the Inquiry Officer. In these premises, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. I have well considered these submissions. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court has observed that the inquiry file Ex.M.1 amply reveals the fact that the workman had been participating in the inquiry proceedings throughout. He fully cross- examined the witnesses produced by the respondent and had full opportunity to adduce his own evidence. The proceedings conducted by Shri Raman Kumar Puri do not show that he had not afforded proper opportunity to the workman to defend himself or that he was prejudiced in any manner against the workman. Raman Kumar Puri was also examined as WW1 by the workman and he maintained that he had conducted an independent inquiry against the workman. The charges against the workman were that he remained absent from duty on 16.7.1981 and 17.7.1981 without any C.W.P. No.1187 of 1988 -4- authorisation or sanction. The workman admitted during the inquiry proceedings as well as in the statement in the Labour Court that he did not attend to his duties on these dates. He has come up with the plea that he had orally applied for the leave which was sanctioned by the Management but he did not take any such plea in his rejoinder. Thus, this plea of his is unacceptable. On perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, it transpires that the same call for no interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed. November 07, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE