C.W.P. No.3941 of 1990 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.3941 of 1990
Date of Decision: 13.10.2009
The Teona Coop. Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Teona,
Tehisal & District Bathinda .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
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)
1. The management, who suffered an order directing
reinstatement of the workman with back wages came on challenge
through this writ petition contending that there is no justification
for denying to the management any reasonable opportunity for
giving evidence. The counsel was present in Court on 05.12.1989
but when he found that witness had not been present, the Labour
Court proceeded to examine the workman and passed the award
on the same day.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the management points
out to the fact that on 16.05.1989, the Labour Court had framed
the issues on the basis of the pleading between parties and
C.W.P. No.3941 of 1990 -2-
directed the case for evidence for the first time on 26.09.1989.
The Court had recorded on that day that no evidence was
produced and while entertaining the plea for an adjournment, the
Labour Court adjourned the case to 31.10.1989 for the parties’
evidence and arguments. On 26.10.1989, the Court had recorded
the fact that the Judge was proceeding on leave on 31.10.1989
and therefore, the case had been adjourned to 05.12.1989 for
evidence of parties and arguments. Obviously, the modification
in the order adjourning to a particular date namely on 31.10.1989
was made by the Court in the absence of parties and therefore, the
subsequent order passed on 26.10.1989 also records the fact that
the parties were to be informed accordingly of the change in date.
It was not as if on the date when the case was adjourned on
05.12.1989, there was no representation for the management.
Their counsel was actually present.
3. The Labour Court had passed rather an unusual order
that since three opportunities had not been availed by the
management, there was no ground for adjourning the case and
proceeded to pass the order on the same day. The manner of
disposal leaves much to be desired. The Court was to adjudicate
on a serious issue of defalcation and on enquiry that was
conducted, which led to ultimate order of dismissal acting on the
report of the Enquiry Officer. The Court was required to see
whether the enquiry had been fair and proper and it was also
C.W.P. No.3941 of 1990 -3-
required to see whether the serious charge attributed against the
workman had been established or not. Even the statement by the
Labour Court that it had granted three opportunities, which were
not availed was wrong. I have already referred to the fact that the
issues themselves had been framed only on 16.05.1989. There
was no justification for Court to proceed post haste for a disposal
of the case for default. While desire of a Court to render
adjudication without any delay is a worthy approach, it should
always be seen in the context of whether a party, who was not
present was deliberately absenting himself or was abusing the
Court’s process. The Court should also examine issues of pleas of
adjournment in the context of how the party has acted during the
course of proceedings. The absence on one hearing date cannot
result in a serious consequence of the party not being granted an
opportunity to join issues on the merits of the claims. The award
upholding the workman’s entitlement to reinstatement does not
even traverse the grounds on which the workman was sought to
be terminated from service. A serious charge against the
workman has been unduly made light of and the order of the
Labour Court directing reinstatement and setting aside the order
of termination was wholly unjustified under the circumstances.
4. A summary order passed by the Labour Court upholding
the workman’s claim without any enquiry on merits has
unfortunately stayed in Court for two decades and it may be
C.W.P. No.3941 of 1990 -4-
unfair that the whole proceedings must go for a fresh adjudication
before the Labour Court but I see no other alternative than to
remit the matter to the Labour Court for a consideration in view
of the serious allegations made against the workman and the
complete lack of consideration of how the workman’s claim was
justified in the award passed by the Labour Court.
5. The award of the Labour Court is set aside and the
Labour Court is directed to take up the case adjudication and
disposal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. The Labour Court shall report to this Court
after the enquiry is concluded. The learned counsel appearing for
the management states that the management will endeavour to
secure the presence of all the witnesses and would conclude its
evidence in two effective dates of hearing. The parties are
directed to appear before the Labour Court on 25.11.2009.
6. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
October 13, 2009
Pankaj*