IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.42 of 2001
Date of decision: 09.09.2009
Motta Singh ...Petitioner
versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN
Present: None for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General,
Advocate, for the respondents.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
—-
K.Kannan, J.(Oral)
1. Neither the petitioner nor the counsel is present. The case is
of the year, 2001 and the matter has been in list for final hearing for the
last number of days. The name of the counsel for the petitioner also
appears in the cause list, but he has not come present. I have proceeded
to examine the records with the assistance of the counsel for the
respondents Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma and pass this order on merits.
2. The subject of reference before the Labour Court was an
order of termination effected after a full-fledged enquiry on 06.09.1990.
The charge against the workman was that he had been absent
unauthorizedly between the period from 20.04.1989 to 19.05.1989 and
again from 05.07.1989 to 25.10.1989 when notices had been sent to him
Civil Writ Petition No.42 of 2001 -2-
immediately after 25.10.1989 on several occasions requiring the
workman to join duty. The workman did not respond and ultimately a
charge-sheet was issued to him imputing the absence from duty
intentionally as constituting the misconduct. The workman did not deny
his absence or the fact that the leave was unauthorized. He cited his own
domestic problems as reasons for his absence. When enquiry was taken
up after the appointment of an Enquiry Officer, the workman suffered a
statement before the Enquiry Officer that he admitted all the charges and
he did not want to go ahead with the enquiry. The report was, therefore,
given by the Enquiry Officer finding him guilty of the charges and a
show cause notice was issued calling upon the workman to show cause
against the findings in the enquiry. The workman chose not to respond
and ultimately the order of punishment was issued, removed him from
service on 06.09.1990.
3. The workman did not prefer any intra-departmental appeal
which was permissible under the rules and he sought to raise a demand
notice impugning the punishment only on 22.11.1996, that is, after six
years. The matter was referred to the Labour Court when a conciliation
did not emerge to the benefit of the workman. The Labour Court had
found that the charges had been proved and indeed the charges were
admitted by the workman himself and the ultimate decision to terminate
the services was found to be justified for unauthorized absence for a long
period of more than three months, which has not been explained at any
point of time. No proper explanation had also been given before
the Labour Court for the inordinate delay for approaching the Court. The
Civil Writ Petition No.42 of 2001 -3-
award of the Labour Court considered all the relevant facts and came to
the conclusion affirming the punishment inflicted upon the workman. I
see no cause for interfering with the award of the Labour Court, rendered
after a comprehensive consideration of all aspects of the case.
4. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
(K.KANNAN)
JUDGE
09.09.2009
sanjeev