C.W.P No.12932 of 1999 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No.12932 of 1999
Date of Decision: 31.07.2009
Dal Chand .....Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Karnal
and another
....Respondents
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate with
Mr. S.S. Sudan, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
1. The challenge in the writ petition is to the award of the
Labour Court rejecting the reference sought by the workman for
adjudication whether the termination of service of the workman was
legal and justified.
2. The writ petition had been filed in the year 1999 and
admitted after notice to the respondent on 17.01.2001. For non-
prosecution of the petition by the petitioner, it was dismissed on
26.02.2002. It was restored on an application when no objection had
been raised by the respondent on 03.07.2002 and it was again
dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.08.2006. The writ petition was
again restored on an application on 15.12.2006 and when it was
C.W.P No.12932 of 1999 -2-
posted for hearing, again there is no representation for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent is present and with his assistance,
I have gone through all the relevant records and I have proceeded to
decide the case on its merits.
3. The case of the petitioner was that he had been appointed as
a Boiler Operator with 2nd respondent on 28.01.1992 and he had been
a participant in the general strike that was called in that area including
2nd respondent’s mill between 21.12.1993 to 23.12.1993. The
allegation against the workman came through a charge that he had
been responsible for causing sabotage to machinery, that resulted in
the disrepair of the machinery at the 2nd respondent’s mill and it took 9
to 10 days before the mill was put to operation. A charge-sheet had
been sent on 07.06.1994 that detailed the description of sabotage and
extent of damages:-
“1. Took out and hid the nut bolts of the gayer boxes of the
boiler.
2. Took out and hid the seats of valves of Boiler.
3. The boiler was obstructed by putting plates in the fuel
system.
4. Leaked the heater by overheating the boiler.
5. Obstructed the water supply system of the boiler.
6. Damaged the chimney of the boiler.
7. Helped in breaking the drums of the Huksar.
8. Hid the nut bolts and separated the sheller from petty
and helped in hiding the plastic plates.
9. Broke the blowers which pack the covers and plates
were damaged.”
4. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and an enquiry was
C.W.P No.12932 of 1999 -3-
constituted. Witnesses had been examined both by the management as
well as by the workman and the Enquiry Officer addressed his
findings with reference to the case of intentionally and voluntarily
damaging the company property, absence from duty, intimidating and
threatening co-workers, holding illegal activities, causing financial
losses and creating hindrance in daily routine affairs of the company
and defaming the reputation of the company. On the most substantial
charge about the sabotage purported to have been done by the
workman, the management had examined the Mill Supervisor, Sh.
M.C. Gupta and Electrician, Sh. Om Parkash. The Supervisor had
given evidence that he was a witness to the workman and other
persons involving in the act of damaging the plant and machinery.
The incident was reported to have taken place on 20.12.1993, the day
before when the strike commenced. There had been also some
damages to the boiler and being a Boiler Operator, the imputation
against him was that he was the only one who was capable of making
the damage of obstructing the boiler by putting the plates in the fuel
system, creating leakage by overheating the boiler, obstructing the
water supply system and damaging the chimney of the boiler. The
other charges relating to how he had incited the other workers to
unruly conduct were also found, on the evidence adduced before the
Enquiry officer, to have been established. Based on the Enquiry
Officer’s report, after a show cause notice issued by the management,
an order of termination was passed which was the subject of challenge
before the Labour Court.
5. The Labour Court directed itself to a preliminary issue
C.W.P No.12932 of 1999 -4-
whether the enquiry had been properly conducted and had also framed
the issue about the validity of the order of termination. Adverting to
the conduct of enquiry, the Labour Court found the procedural
formalities had been duly followed such as affording to the workman a
right to carry on the proceedings in Hindi in the language as desired
by the workman, permitting witnesses to be examined and cross-
examined before a report was given. The workman had also been
afforded an opportunity to show cause notice against the findings
rendered by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges had been
fully established. Even while dealing with the issue of fairness in the
enquiry, the Labour Court had dealt with the evidence that had been
placed before the Enquiry Officer and on the due consideration of the
statement of witnesses, the Labour Court observed that in the absence
of any material to doubt the fairness and propriety of the procedure as
well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer, found that punishment
accorded to the workman for the seriousness of the misconduct to be
just and proper.
6. The award of the Labour Court considers the case in all its
details that are necessary to be adverted and I find no reason to take a
decision upsetting the factual rendering made by the Labour Court.
The writ petition is without merit and it is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
July 31, 2009
Pankaj*