Satnam Singh vs Presiding Officer on 29 April, 2009

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                             C.W.P. No. 6445 of 2009.
                                          Date of Decision : April 29, 2009.

Satnam Singh.                                                ....... Petitioner.


                                   Versus.


Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar, and another. ....... Respondents.

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

Present:-    Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).

In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated

06.10.2008 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar, vide

which the reference has been answered against the workman, holding therein

that the services of the workman were terminated in accordance with the

statutory rules governing the service.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is true that the

workman was issued chargesheet and thereafter inquiry was ordered to be

held against him. However, during the inquiry proceedings merely because

the workman had admitted his absence from duty, the inquiry officer has

proceeded to give finding against him. An application was submitted by the

workman for seeking assistance in the departmental inquiry which was never

decided merely because he had admitted the charges levelled against him and

the inquiry officer gave finding against him and his services have been

terminated. He contends that the inquiry proceedings, therefore, are vitiated.
C.W.P. No. 6445 of 2009. -2-

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through

the records of the case.

The factual aspect with regard to the workman being absent

from duty, issuance of show cause notice and his admission with regard to

charge levelled against him that he was absent from duty, is not in dispute.

The only contention which has been raised by counsel for the petitioner with

regard to non holding of inquiry or not proceeding with the inquiry and

giving finding merely on the admission of the workman. He has further

contended that his application for assistance in the inquiry proceedings was

not decided. This contention of counsel for the petitioner cannot be

accepted for the reason that on admission of the charges levelled against the

workman, no further dispute exists which would call for further inquiry into

the matter, had the workman disputed the charges levelled against him. The

contention as raised by counsel for the petitioner could have been gone into

and could have been reason good enough for proceeding with the matter

further. Since the workman had admitted his charges, therefore, the question

of granting him any assistance in the inquiry proceeding does not arise.

That being so, no illegality can be said to have been committed

by the Labour Court while passing its award dated 06.10.2008

(Annexure-P-4). The finding as has been given by the Labour Court is fully

justified and therefore, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same

stands dismissed.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
April 29, 2009.

sjks.