Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh vs Presiding Officer Labour Court ... on 9 March, 2011
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1306 of 2010(O&M)
Date of decision: 09.03.2011
Surinder Singh
.....Appellant
versus
Presiding Officer Labour Court Bhatinda and another
......Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Ms.Shikha Sharma, Advocate for
Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate for the appellant
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
C.M. No.3950 of 2011 After hearing counsel for the appellant, delay in re-filing the appeal stands condoned.
LPA No.1306 of 2010 This appeal has been filed against an order dated 22.1.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing CWP No.14379 of 1989, filed by the appellant-petitioner, to lay challenge to an award passed by the Labour Court on 13.12.1988, upholding termination of the appellant by the respondent.
It is apparent from the records that the appellant was working on the post of a Conductor. Checking was done by Surjit Singh, Inspector (MW1) on 19.9.1984 and it was found that the appellant had re-sold the tickets, which were exhibited on record as Ex.M2 and Ex.M5. To say that LPA No.1306 of 2010(O&M) 2 the tickets were re-sold, reference was made to the voucher Ex.M6 and Ex.M7, prepared by the workman for the two days earlier i.e. on 17.9.1984. It is also on record that the respondents called upon an explanation from the workman vide letter Ex.M13 and vide document Ex.M8, the appellant had admitted his guilt and prayed that he be apologized for the mistake committed by him. On account of the admission of guilt, his service was terminated. He went to the Labour Court and vide order dated 13.12.1988, his prayer to aside termination was declined by observing as under:-
"As is apparent from the respondents pleas in the written statement the workman was removed from service on the ground of serious misconduct. Since the parties are governed by the Model Standing Orders given in Schedule I of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Punjab Rules 1948, the services of workman "shall not be terminated on the ground of misconduct unless he has been adjudged guilty of misconduct after domestic enquiry held in the manner prescribed". (Rule 23(2).
Holding enquiry however is unnecessary if the workman admits his guilt. For authority on the point I rely upon State Bank of India v/s K.Kannahiram and another 1986 LLN 462 (Madras) and Hindustan Aeronautious Ltd. v/s Gulabh Singh & others 1986 Lab. IC 1403 (Karnatak).
It is clear on the evidence of Surjit Singh Inspector MW/1 that he checked the bus conducted by the workman on 19.9.84 and found that the workman had resold passenger tickets Ex.M/2, M/5. The voucher Ex.M/6 which the conductor had prepared on that date showed that he had sold these LPA No.1306 of 2010(O&M) 3 tickets. Surjit Singh testified that he had collected these tickets from the passengers traveling in the bus while checking on that day and yet the voucher Ex.M/7 prepared by the workman two days earlier i.e. 17.9.84 also recorded that he had sold these very tickets on that day also. Surjit Singh made an appropriate note of the discovery on the voucher Ex.M/6. The employer called the explanation of the workman by a letter copy of which is Ex.M/13. The crucial document is Ex.M/8 by which the workman is supposed to have admitted his guilt and apologized. It is admittedly not in the handwriting of the workman. According to the management however it is signed by him which the workman dispute.
In his cross-examination workman admitted that employer had never obtained his signatures on a blank paper as long as he had remained in his employment. This places the controversy in a short compass. If Ex.M/8 bears the signatures of the workman. It is in all probability his admission because he knows Gurmukhi script quite well as is clear from his signatures elsewhere. If he did not sign this document, there is no evidence of admission. We have the opinion of the two handwriting experts, Sh.Atula Singla examined by the management and Sh.P.S.Ahuja examined by the workman. Surinder Singh workman according to the former is the author of the disputed signatures and according to the letter not. I have carefully gone through the reports of the two experts Ex.MW/2/1 and WW/2/1 and given my thoughtful consideration to their testimony. I am of the opinion that the testimony and LPA No.1306 of 2010(O&M) 4 report of Sh.Atul Singla is very very convincing. The documents produced by the workman are nothing but the correspondence between him and the employer after the termination of his service, the workman insisting that he had made no confession etc. There are self serving statements. Holding therefore that the workman had made an admission of the guilt in Ex.M/8/1 conclude that enquiry was not necessary and that the termination of his service was lawful and justified. The issue is decided accordingly.
Relief: In view of my findings on the issue above and my observations hereinbefore made I answer the reference in the affirmative holding that the workman is not entitled to any relief. No order as to costs."
He came to this Court by filing CWP No.14379 of 1989. Taking note of the observations made by the Labour Court, especially document Ex.M8 and also a fact that the appellant had remained in service for about eight months only, the writ petition was dismissed.
Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the guilt of offence was never admitted by the appellant. We are not in agreement with the contention raised. The Labour Court has discussed the entire evidence in a threadbare manner. Document Ex.M8 is signed by the appellant. Two experts witnesses, contradicting each other were produced by the parties. The Labour Court has given sufficient reasons to believe the expert witness produced by the Management. Otherwise also, once it has been admitted by the appellant that never, his signatures were obtained on a blank paper, there is no reason to disbelieve the document Ex.M8. No legal infirmity has been shown in the order, which may necessitate any LPA No.1306 of 2010(O&M) 5 interference. No case is made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal as well.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
09.03.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg)
gk Judge