C.W.P. No.678 of 1988 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
C.W.P. No.678 of 1988
Date of Decision:09.09.2008
Hamir Singh
.....Petitioner
Vs.
The Sumundri Roadways, Pvt. Ltd., Muktsar and another
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
****
HARBANS LAL, J.
This petition has been moved by Hamir Singh under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned award
dated 30.10.1987 (Annexure P.1)
The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner-
workman along with three other workmen had intercepted a bus of the
respondent- Management on 16.1.1984 on Muktsar-Ferozepur route. They
dragged out the driver and conductor of the bus and gave severe beatings to
them besides damaging the bus and harassing the passengers and also
absented from duty with effect from the said date. The petitioner was
charge-sheeted. In the inquiry report, it was held that all the charges
levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet were fully proved and his
services were terminated. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the petitioner served
demand notice. The dispute was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Bathinda. The following issues were framed by the learned
Presiding Officer of the Labour Court:-
“(i) Whether the inquiry is fair and proper?
C.W.P. No.678 of 1988 -2-
(ii) Whether the order of termination of the services of the
workman is justified?
(iii) Relief.
After recording evidence and hearing the representatives of the
parties, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court held that “the
workman is not entitled to reinstatement but compensation in lieu of
wrongful dismissal which I assess at Rs.7500/- with no order as to costs.”
Feeling aggrieved therewith, the petitioner- workman has filed this petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None has
put in appearance on behalf of the respondent- Sumundri Roadways Private
Limited, Muktsar. Ms. Deepinder Kaur appearing on behalf of the
petitioner agitated at the bar that the services of one Kulwinder Singh,
driver of the respondent- Management were also terminated along with the
petitioner on the ground that he had indulged in the acts of vandalism along
with the petitioner, Major Singh and Randhir Singh and he (Kulwinder
singh) also raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication
to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bathinda- respondent, who has
reinstated Kulwinder Singh vide award dated 9.6.1987 Annexure P.2 and
thus on applying the rule of parity, the petitioner is also liable to be
reinstated. She further pressed into service that the services of the petitioner
were terminated without any fair and proper inquiry, though he had served
with the respondent- Management for five years and the order of
termination of his services amount to retrenchment but nonetheless
retrenchment compensation has not been paid. She has sought to place
abundant reliance upon the observations made by the Apex Court in re:
Mohan Lal v. The Management of M/s Bharat Electronics Limited, AIR
C.W.P. No.678 of 1988 -3-
1981 Supreme Court 1253, wherein it has been held as under:-
“Where the termination is illegal especially where there is an
ineffective order of retrenchment, there is neither termination
nor cessation of service and a declaration follows that the
workman concerned continues to be in service with all
consequential benefits, namely back wages in full and other
benefits.
On giving a thoughtful consideration to these submissions, I am
unable to persuade myself to agree therewith for the reasons to be recorded
hereinafter. Of course, the Labour Court has observed that the workman
having been dismissed without fair and proper inquiry, without notice and
compensation envisaged in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, the termination of his services is illegal. But one thing is clear that
domestic inquiry was held. In the relief clause of the impugned award, the
learned Labour Court has observed that “on the evidence of Gurdip Singh,
Conductor MW/4, corroborated by the certified copy of the FIR, Ex.M/30,
the workman along with three others had intercepted bus No.PEF -425 of
the respondent on 16.1.1984, when it was proceeding from Muktsar to
Ferozepur, had pulled out Gurdip Singh, conductor and Balwinder Singh,
driver and caused injuries, visible to the Doctor of the Civil Hospital,
Muktsar, who recorded the same in the medical report, copies of which are
Ex. M/28 and M/29. The passengers travelling in the bus escaped in fear.
The workman also damaged the window panes of the bus. The
Management also suspects on a reasonable ground that the workman had
committed embezzlement of its revenue. With these credentials, the
workman cannot in my opinion rendered any meaningful service for the
C.W.P. No.678 of 1988 -4-
Management and must not, therefore, be reinstated.” To me, it appears that
no fault can be found with these observations.
In re: Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. v. Ghanshyam
Sharma, 2002(3) Recent Services Judgments 77, the respondent was
employed as a Conductor by the appellant. On more than one occasion, he
was punished having been charge-sheeted on the ground of not issuing the
tickets to the passengers. He was found carrying 23-1/2 passengers without
tickets and an inquiry was conducted and he was removed from service.
The Labour Court upheld the finding that respondent is guilty of
misconduct of carrying 23-1/2 passengers without tickets but ordered
reinstatement with continuity of service without back-wages. The Apex
Court ruled that “in cases like the present, order of dismissal should not be
set aside. It will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead
of dismissal.”
Adverting to the facts of the instant case, as has been reflected
in the impugned award and reproduced above, the petitioner along with
others indulged into vandalism and caused injuries to the driver as well as
conductor of the bus which created panic amongst the passengers who had
to run away. So much so, even FIR was got registered. Their such conduct
in proprio-vigore is enough to hold that they were not fit to be retained in
service and order of termination could not be set aside. Coming to
Annexure P.2, the award dated 9.6.1987 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer of the Labour Court, Bathinda holding that the workman (referring
to Kulwinder Singh) is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, it
is pertinent to point here that it was found in Kulwinder Singh’s case that his
services were terminated on the ground of serious misconduct but without
C.W.P. No.678 of 1988 -5-
holding a domestic inquiry though such inquiry had admittedly been held in
the present case. This is the distinguishing feature. That being so, on the
basis of Annexure P.2, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner-
workman to contend that he is also entitled to be reinstated into service.
Ostensibly, the law by way of evolution has undergone metamorphosis after
1981. Sequelly, the petitioner cannot derive any mileage from the
observations rendered in re: Mohan Lal (supra).
In the ultimate analysis, it transpires that the impugned award
does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity or perversity or material
irregularity. Consequently, this petition is dismissed.
September 09, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE