C.W.P. No.676 of 1988 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
C.W.P. No.676 of 1988
Date of Decision:09.09.2008
Major Singh
.....Petitioner
Vs.
The Sumundari 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 Major Singh under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned award
dated 2.11.1987 (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 and
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 himself 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 order of termination of the service of the
C.W.P. No.676 of 1988 -2-workman is justified?
(ii) 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- Sumundari Roadways
Private Limited, Muktsar through its General Manager. Ms. Deepinder
Kaur appearing on behalf of the petitioner agitated at the bar that one
Kulwinder Singh, driver of the respondent- Management was also
terminated along with the petitioner on the ground that he had indulged in
the acts of vandalism along with the petitioner, Hamir 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 ten
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 1981 Supreme Court 1253, wherein it has been held as
C.W.P. No.676 of 1988 -3-
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. The Labour Court has observed that “the workman having been
dismissed without fair, proper inquiry, without notice and compensation
envisaged in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the
termination of his services is illegal.” In the relief clause of the impugned
award, the learned Labour Court has observed that “The workman along
with three others had intercepted bus No.PBF:425 of the respondent on
16.1.84 when it was proceeding on route to Ferozepur from Muktsar, had
pulled out Gurdeep Singh conductor and Balwinder Singh driver, had
caused them injuries, had caused panic and inconvenience to the passengers
some of whom returned the tickets and had damaged the window panes of
the bus, leading to the registration of a criminal case in which they were
arrested. The allegations were made in the written statement (and the
dismissal order) and were not specifically denied in the rejoinder although
the workman had vaguely pleaded that “a false case was got registered
against the workman on 16.1.84.” The management also suspects on a
reasonable ground that the workman had committed embezzlement of its
revenue. With these credentials, the workman cannot in any opinion render
C.W.P. No.676 of 1988 -4-
any meaningful service for the 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 held 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
proprio-vigore is enough to hold that they were not fit to be retained in
service and sequelly, the 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
C.W.P. No.676 of 1988 -5-
but without 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 the rule of parity should be applied to
his case. Ostensibly, the law by way of evolution has undergone
metamorphosis after 1981. As such, the petitioner cannot derive any
mileage from the observations rendered in re: Mohan Lal (supra).
In the ultimate analysis, it follows that the impugned award
does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity or perversity or material
irregularity calling for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, this petition is
dismissed.
September 09, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No