CWP No. 16608 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 16608 of 2009
Date of decision October 30, 2009
Darshan Pal
....... Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon
and another
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:-
Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers 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 writ petition is filed impugning the manner in
which the issue has been framed in a case where the misconduct is
attributed to the workman and the Labour Court has instead of calling upon
the Management to substantiate the grounds alleged by casting the burden
on the Management has directed the workman to lead his evidence as
though the onus of proof was on the workman. Disputes relating to framing
of issues and conduct of trial are essentially matters of procedure to be
decided by the Court during the course of the trial of the suit. It shall be
inappropriate for the Court to be interfering through writ petitions for
according to the aggrieved party what is for the just course in his
perception. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites decisions of this
Hon’ble Court in Dominant Off-set Private Ltd. Vs. The Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon and another
1997 (3) RSJ and M/sPunjab Tractors Limited Vs. Presiding Officer,
CWP No. 16608 of 2009 2
Labour Court and another reported in Vol. 198 (1) PLR 342 where the
procedures in domestic enquiry had been complained as vitiated. In the
former case, the learned Judge has also observed that what kind of
evidence would be sufficient to prove an issue would be upon the judicial
wisdom of the Labour Court. I do not know how these judgments support
the case of the workman in any way. In Dominant Off-set Private Ltd.’s
case (supra) the Court held that provisions of Evidence Act would afford
guidelines, as to how the burden of proof is to be discharged though the
said provisions may not be applicable in letter and spirit to the proceedings
before Labour Court. In a case where the party was contending that
particular action taken by it was justified, the party asserting the existence
of a positive fact is supposed to place the material in proof of its existence.
The allegation of misconduct on the part of workmen, therefore should be
proved by the party alleging the same.
2. The lesson that could be learnt would therefore,
be that if the misconduct is attributed to the workman, it shall be on the
Management to establish the misconduct. It shall be open for the workman
to lead any evidence if he is directed to open his case with such details as
are necessary to state as defence and reserve to himself the liberty to let in
rebuttal evidence after the Management seeks to led evidence to establish
the positive burden of proof of misconduct. I do not think that the question
as to how the issue is to be confirmed shall ever be a matter for
consideration at the preliminary stage by an intervention through a writ
petition.
3. The writ petition under the circumstances is
dismissed. No costs.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
October 30, 2009
archana