Letters Patent Appeal No.624 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Letters Patent Appeal No.624 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-17.11.2009
Sanjay Kumar --Appellant
Versus
General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar and others ---Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.A.K.Singh Goyat, Advocate for the appellant.
J.S.KHEHAR, ACJ.(ORAL)
CM No.3324 of 2009
For the reasons indicated in the instant application and on
account of personal affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant-
appellant, the civil miscellaneous application is allowed. Order dated
12.11.2009 dismissing the letters patent appeal for non-prosecution is
recalled.
In view of the above, the instant appeal is directed to be
restored to its original number.
LPA No.642 of 2009
While seeking to challenge the determination rendered by the
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar as also by
the learned Single Judge of this Court in disposing of CWP No.14529 of
2008 vide order dated 17.2.2009, the solitary contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant is based on the statement of Mahabir Singh MW-2.
Based on the aforesaid statement, it is the vehement contention of learned
Letters Patent Appeal No.624 of 2009 (O&M) 2
counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not involved in any manner
whatsoever in the theft of aluminium. It is also the case of learned counsel
for the appellant that no stolen article was recovered from the appellant.
It is not possible for us to accept the solitary argument
advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. Statement of
Mahabir Singh is available on the record of this case as MW-2. It is the
aforesaid Mahabir Singh, who had detected the commission of theft at the
hands of the appellant whereupon the appellant fled away leaving behind
the bag containing the stolen articles. The statement of Mahabir Singh was
not only accepted by the Labour Court but also by this Court. The factual
position affirmed by the Labour Court is on the basis of the evidence placed
before it. It stood established that the appellant was in the process of
committing theft but on being detected ran away leaving behind the bag
containing the stolen articles. It is not possible for us in exercise of the
appellate authority vested in us to interfere in findings of fact, especially
when there is no material on record to demonstrate that the conclusions
drawn by the Labour Court as also by the learned Single Judge are not
sustainable. Additionally, it may be pertinent to mention that the report
submitted by Mahabir Singh MW-2 dated 9.9.1996 (placed on the record of
Labour Court as Ex.M3) was not appended to the writ petition filed by the
appellant. It is in the aforesaid report Ex.M3 that the appellant came to be
indicted for the theft committed by him. In the absence of any challenge to
the report, it is natural to conclude that there was no material with the
appellant to assail the same.
In view of the factual position noticed here-in-above, we are
satisfied that the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court as also by
Letters Patent Appeal No.624 of 2009 (O&M) 3
the learned Judge of this Court need no interference at our hands.
For the reasons recorded here-in-above, we find no merit in the
instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(J.S.Khehar)
Acting Chief Justice
(Mehinder Singh Sullar)
17.11.2009 Judge
AS