C.W.P. No.8239 of 1989 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.8239 of 1989 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 18.12.2009
The Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Nawashahr
....Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Hardev Singh and another ....Respondents
Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Sibbal, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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)
C.M. No.16554 of 2009
Application is allowed as prayed for.
C.M. No.16555 of 2009
Application is allowed.
Delay of 84 days in filing the application for recalling of
the order is delayed.
C.M. No.16556 of 2009
For the reasons stated in the application, the order of
dismissal, which was made on 14.07.2009 for default of
appearance, is recalled. The case is taken up for hearing on
merits.
C.M. stands disposed of.
C.W.P. No.8239 of 1989 (O&M) -2-
C.W.P. No.8239 of 1989
1. The award under challenge is a direction for
reinstatement to a workman in a Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.
The management had served two separate charge-sheets on the
workman for alleged misconduct that resulted in financial losses
to the management. One of a shortall in the cane purchased and
two, a surprise visit yielding to unearthing a deliberate omission
to make entries in the bill prchi. The result of the enquiry
purported to be proof of the misconduct and the management
went ahead with an order of termination. This order of
termination was challenged through a reference to a Labour Court
where the Labour Court had framed several issues that included
whether the enquiry was fair and proper. The Labour Court had,
after obtaining the statement of claim filed by the parties, directed
to come up for evidence only on Issue No.1 namely whether the
enquiry relied on by the management was fair and proper on
19.02.1986. It appears that the case had been adjourned to several
dates and on 15.05.1987, the Court directed the respondent to
produce its entire evidence on own responsibility. After letting in
the evidence, written arguments were filed where the management
had stated that they should be granted an opportunity to let in
evidence on other issues if a finding was recorded that the enquiry
had not been fair and proper. The Labour Court, however, while
passing the impugned award found that the enquiry was not fair
C.W.P. No.8239 of 1989 (O&M) -3-
and proper and he had also given his finding on other issues. It is
not possible to discern from the award as to whether the counsel
had been specifically apprised of the fact that the award would be
delivered on all the issues. Indeed, the Labour Court could not
have undertaken such an exercise and could not have answered its
findings on other issues without affording to the management an
opportunity to lead evidence on other issues and particularly
giving an opportunity to prove the misconduct if it chose to give
evidence before the Court.
2. The issue as to how and under what circumstance the
permission to let in evidence for proof of misconduct had been
dealt with by the Consitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Lakshmidevamma
(2001) 5 SCC 433. The procedure laid down refers to the fact
that the management shall seek for such an option in its written
statement or it may arise in a case where the Labour Court itself
frames a preliminary issue and directs the parties to lead evidence
only on such issue. By an implication, it would mean that the
issues are still open as regards the other issues. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the Labour Court may in its discretion
provide for such an option notwithstanding the fact that the
management did not seek for such specific option. In this case,
the Court when it directed evidence be let in only on one issue
namely Issue No.1, it could not have delivered an award on all
C.W.P. No.8239 of 1989 (O&M) -4-
other issues without putting it to the managment whether they
wanted to lead any evidence on other issues. The award in so far
as it gives a finding on all issues without giving the opportunity
to the management to prove the misconduct before the Labour
Court was unjustified.
3. The direction for reinstatement, however, has become
over the period of time, meaningless, in view of the subsequent
events that have taken place when the workman was reinstated
and he was also superannuated. The admitted position does not go
beyond that and it is not known whether the workman was given
the wages on a regular scale of pay or whether he had been
allowed only the benefit of what was in another way possible for
drawing the benefits under Section 17-B of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The issue turns on whether the workman should be
granted the back wages for the period when he was terminated
from service pursuant to a departmental enquiry on 17.12.982 and
when he was reinstated in service by virtue of the award dated
22.12.1987. I do not think the matter should go for a fresh
adjudication after 20 years, for the workman had the benefit of
reinstatement on an award, which I have held to be not validly
passed. If the workman had not been put a regular scale of pay
but he was merely afforded last drawn wages under Section 17-B
of the Industrial Disputes Act, I direct that the management shall
pay the wages on the regular scale of a person working in his
C.W.P. No.8239 of 1989 (O&M) -5-
cadre. However, if the wages have been paid to the workman as a
regular employee, nothing remains to be done. He shall also be
entitled to all terminal benefits. The workman shall not be
entitled to any back wages during the period when he did not give
his services to the Society.
4. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms
taking note of the subsequent events as well. No costs.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
December 18, 2009
Pankaj*