Punjab-Haryana High Court
General Manager vs Ishwar Singh And Others on 11 November, 2008
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
CWP No.11383 of 2008 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.11383 of 2008
Date of Decision: 10-11-2008
General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani ....Petitioner
Versus
Ishwar Singh and others .....Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Shri Sunil Nehra, AAG, Haryana.
Shri Manoj Chahal, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
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?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award dated 25.9.2007, whereby the Labour Court set aside the order of termination dated 28.5.1991 and ordered the reinstatement of the workman on his previous post with continuity of service and payment of 50% backwages from the date of the demand notice.
Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as `the workman') was appointed as conductor on 9.9.1971 in Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani. His services were terminated on 28.5.1991 after conducting a disciplinary proceedings. The workman raised an industrial dispute in respect of his termination. The Labour Court on 16.4.2003 found that there was no fair and proper inquiry conducted against the workman. Thereafter, the Management in terms of the option to lead further evidence to substantiate the charges, was permitted to lead evidence. The petitioner examined MW1-Mehtab Singh, Retired Chief Inspector, CWP No.11383 of 2008 (2) who was the member of the checking Party; MW2- Miter Singh, retired Inspector and MW3- Kuldip Singh. Such evidence was led to prove the misconduct on the part of the workman before the Labour Court for the first time. However, the Labour Court found that since the checking staff failed to enquire from the passengers or whom the workman has allegedly taken money from and has not issued tickets, therefore, it was held that the termination is illegal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh, (1977)2 Supreme Court Cases 491 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Vinod Kumar, (2008)1 Supreme Court Cases 115, to contend that in the departmental inquiry against the conductor, the examination of the passengers is not necessary.
In Rattan Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held to the following effect:-
"5. Reliance was placed, as earlier stated, on the non-compliance with the departmental instruction that statements of passengers should be recorded by inspectors. These are instructions of prudence, not rules that bind or vitiate in the violation. In this case, the Inspector tried to get the statements but the passengers declined, the psychology of the latter in such circumstances being understandable, although may not be approved. We cannot hold that merely because statements of passengers were not recorded the order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the re- evaluation of the evidence on the strength of co- conductor's testimony is a matter not for the court but for the administrative tribunal. In conclusion, we do not think the courts below were right in overturning the finding of the domestic tribunal.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon an order passed by this Court in Mushlim Khan v. Dakshin CWP No.11383 of 2008 (3) Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another, 2008(3) RSJ 59. The said case raises a question of issuance of a second show cause notice and not the requirement of the passengers as a witness in the departmental inquiry. In fact, the said case is the order of reference to the Larger Bench. Hence, reference to such order by the learned counsel for the workman, is not relevant.
In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattan Singh's case (supra), we are of the opinion that the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court, suffers from patent illegality and irregularity. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned Award is set aside.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 10-11-2008 ds