Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh Bhatia vs Porrits & Spancer Asia Ltd & Anr on 20 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
104 CWP-16731-2013
Date of Decision : November 20, 2025
DARSHAN SINGH BHATIA
-PETITIONER
V/S
PORRITS & SPANCER ASIA LTD. AND ANR.
-RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, with
Ms. Bhargavi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Saini, Advocate
for the respondent No.1.
***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant writ petition assails the award dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure P-15), whereby the respondent No.2/Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad, having found the termination of services of the petitioner/workman to be legally sustainable, answered the reference against him and in favour of the respondent No.1/management.
2. Before proceeding to gauge the validity of the impugned award and penning down a verdict, it is deemed imperative at this juncture to record that, during the initial hearing of the instant writ petition on 02.08.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner/workman waived the workman's right to reinstatement and restricted his prayer solely to compensation. Consequently, notice of motion was issued only in respect of compensation. The interim order dated 02.08.2013 is 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:14:00 ::: CWP-16731-2013 2 extracted below:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not intend to press this writ petition, qua the claim of reinstatement of the petitioner and he would like to limit the prayer on behalf of the petitioner, only for compensation.
Notice of motion, only qua compensation, for 06.09.2013."
3. In view of the above, the sole issue warranting consideration now is "whether the workman is entitled to compensation".
4. Although learned counsel for the workman had waived the workman's right to reinstatement at the onset, i.e. on 02.08.2013, he has again raked up this claim on merits, which this Court cannot enter into and adjudicate now. Nevertheless, he chose to advance arguments on this issue and submitted that the inquiry conducted against the workman does not pass the test of legality, as the workman was not given proper opportunity to defend himself and even the inquiry report, list of witnesses and other relevant documents were also not supplied to him. It is further submitted that the punishment imposed upon the workman is also disproportionate. In order to substantiate this argument, he submitted that the workman joined service with the management on 12.07.1979 and earned three promotions up to 1995. However, the management wanted to get rid of him being an old aged person, and therefore, he was initially served with two charge sheets and then he was served with the charge sheet dated 08.01.2003, which ultimately led to termination of his services. Accordingly, it is submitted that the workman has clean antecedents and he worked diligently with the management. Therefore, the punishment of termination of services is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the workman.
2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:14:01 ::: CWP-16731-2013 3
5. Learned counsel for the workman further argued that the Industrial Tribunal ought to have considered the proportionality of the punishment under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the I.D. Act"), but erroneously concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the issue of disproportionate punishment. To lend vigour to his contentions, he placed reliance upon the verdicts rendered by Division Benches and Full Bench of this Court respectively in "Mangat Rai Vs. Punjab Road Transport Corporation", 1998(1) S.C.T. 771; "Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar and another", 1995(3) PLR 603; and "Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Haryana", 1998(2) S.C.T. 1.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the management contended that the charges against the workman were of such gravity that no punishment less than termination could have been warranted. It is submitted that once the workman was found guilty of embezzlement, the management lost confidence in him and in such circumstances no other punishment except termination of his services was just and adequate. In support of his contentions, he also placed reliance upon the verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "The General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union Vs. The Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and ors.", 2006 AIR (Supreme Court) 2208, wherein it was held that once the Labour Court comes to a conclusion that inquiry was fair and proper and there was no violation of principles of natural justice, it has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 11A unless the punishment is grossly 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:14:01 ::: CWP-16731-2013 4 inadequate or it is a case of unfair labour practices.
7. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and made a meticulous survey of the record.
8. It is considered significant, at this stage, to have a glimpse of the charges framed against the workman, as they constitute the bedrock for termination of his services. The relevant portion of the charge sheet dated 08.01.2003 is extracted hereunder:-
"Some waste articles/scrap was sold by the company on 27th December, 1999 to Sh. Khem Chand (Scrap dealer). Sh. Khem Chand paid you in cash a sum of Rs. 5600/- (Rupees five thousand six hundred only) on 3 January 2000. You with a view to misappropriate the amount and that it may not be detected, traced an unused receipt book from the record containing receipt no. from 26801 to 27000. Till date the receipt numbers from 26801 to 26933 have been used while remaining are not used yet. You in a very clever manner used the last page of the receipt book wherein two receipts were in existence containing no. 26999 and 27000. You used receipt No. 26999 and issued under your signature to Sh. Khem Chand on 3rd January 2000 which is evident from the office copy still lying in the book. Whereas this particular book was put into use from October 2000 onwards. Also for last receipt No. 27000, all copies are missing from the receipt book.
An amount of Rs. 5600/- as mentioned in above para has not been accounted for by you in the cash book as received by you on 3rd January 2000.
This fact has been detected now. You are accordingly charged for the misappropriation and embezzlement for the amount of Rs. 5600/- and use of receipt No. 27000."
9. What emanates from a perusal of the charge sheet dated 08.01.2003 is that it is a clear cut case of embezzlement and the said charges were proved against the workman in the departmental inquiry, which has attained finality. Consequently, this Court finds no compelling 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:14:01 ::: CWP-16731-2013 5 reason to interfere either with the termination order or the well-reasoned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed, as being devoid of merit.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
November 20, 2025 JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:14:01 :::