Amrik Singh vs The Presiding Officer on 4 August, 2009

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH


                             Letters Patent Appeal No. 241 of 2009 (O&M)

                                           Date of Decision: August 04, 2009


Amrik Singh

                                                               .... Appellant

                                  Versus

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another.

                                                             ... Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR,
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND.

Present :    Mr. Narinder Kumar, Advocate,
             for Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate,
             for the appellant.


J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral)

The appellant was, in the first instance, proceeded against

departmentally for the following charges:-

“(1) that when his bus was checked on way to Delhi from Mukatsar

between Malour and Dabwali, it was discovered although three

passengers were travelling from Mukatsar to Delhi two from

Mukatsar to Rohtak and one from Mukatsar to Hissar all of

them had been charged from Delhi but given tickets for Sirsa

and had in the process embezzled from Rs.85.25 ps.

(2) that when the case in hand with the workman was checked on

18.6.79 on his return trip from Delhi it was found in excess of

the sale proceeds of the tickets by Rs.102.32 ps. Suggesting
LPA No. 241 of 2009 2

that he had charged certain passengers without issuing them the

requisite tickets; and

(3) that when his bus was checked again on 3.4.79 on way to

Bathinda from Mukatsar he was found to have charged Rs.2/-

from four passeners (@ Rs.0.50 ps per head) without issuing

any tickets to them.”

Having found the appellant – workman guilty, he was terminated from his

employment. Dis-satisfied with the determination rendered by the General

Manager, Punjab Roadways, Mukatsar, the appellant raised a dispute, which

was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda. The

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda, vide an award dated 25.03.1987

declined the claim of the appellant. The finding, recorded by the General

Manager, Punjab Roadways, Mukatsar, was upheld.

Dis-satisfied with the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour

Court, Bathinda, dated 25.03.1987, the appellant approached this Court by

filing Civil Writ Petition No. 10218 of 1988. The learned Single Judge

dismissed the aforesaid writ petition on 17.11.2008. The instant Letters

Patent Appeal has been filed to assail the order passed by this Court on

17.11.2008, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 10218 of 1988 preferred by the

appellant was dismissed.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant

has advanced only one contention, namely, that during the course of the

departmental enquiry, the proceedings before the Presiding Officer, Labour

Court, Bathinda, as also before this Court during the course of the

determination of the Civil Writ Petition No. 10218 of 1988, the evidence

produced at the hands of the appellant was not appropriately assessed.
LPA No. 241 of 2009 3

It is not possible for us to accept the aforestated contention

advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The conclusion drawn by

the authorities referred to hereinabove is well reasoned and calls for no

interference.

Despite the conclusion recorded by us in the foregoing

paragraph, we consider it just and appropriate to extract hereunder the basis

of the claim on which the appellant suggests that the consideration at the

hands of the authorities was inappropriate. We are accordingly extracting

hereunder the part of the statement of Harminder Singh, (one of the

witnesses produced by the appellant, during the course of the departmental

proceedings) to which the learned counsel for the appellant had invited our

attention, during the course of hearing:-

“On 17.6.79, there were two other passengers with me. We had

boarded the Punjab Roadways Bus at 5.15 a.m. from Mukatsar

for Sirsa. When the bus reached Malout, it was checked by an

Inspector. On enquiry from him whether we had to go to Sirsa

or Delhi, we replied that we have to go to Delhi, but from Sirsa

some of our passengers were to board the bus. We have to go to

Delhi after waiting for them. Despite our saying so the

Inspector forcibly took the unpunched tickets from Sirsa to

Delhi from the conductor. We had tickets from Mukatsar to

Sirsa.”

Having perused the statement recorded by one of the defence witnesses of

the appellant, we are satisfied that the same is, in fact, a turn around of their

earlier account, inasmuch as they clearly informed the Inspector who had

checked the bus that they had boarded the bus to go to Delhi, although they
LPA No. 241 of 2009 4

tried to mix-up the factual position by asserting that, some other passengers

were to accompany them from Sirsa for their onwards journey to Delhi.

Having recorded our remarks as above, we are satisfied that the statement of

the defence witness, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant,

cannot be read to draw an inference in his favour.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the

instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

In view of the fact that the main appeal has been dismissed on

merits, we find no justification for passing a separate order on the

application for condoning the delay (in filing the instant appeal).

                                                           ( J.S. Khehar )
                                                                  Judge


August 04, 2009                                            ( S.D. Anand )
vkd                                                               Judge