The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employer must justify the dismissal and the proportionality of the punishment in cases of industrial disputes.

SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. This Intra Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’) being dissatisfied with the judgment dated 01.07.2010 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.8983/2013. – Haryana Roadways v. Lochan Singh.

2. The appellant herein was employed as a conductor in the respondent – Haryana Roadways (hereinafter referred to as ‘the management’). While he was working as such, he was served with a charge-sheet on the allegations that on 16.05.1987, the bus was checked by inspectors of the management at Ambala Cantt and it was found that the appellant - workman had charged Rs.25/- only from 4 of the passengers against the prescribed fare of Rs.35.50p and issued tickets to them of Rs.18/- only. Two other passengers were found sleeping on the roof and claimed to be there with the permission of the appellant - workman. The appellant – workman was as such charged with causing loss to the respondent - management of the fare of a total sum of Rs.75.50p and having embezzled the same. The explanation of the workman having not been found satisfactory, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The workman participated in the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report finding the charges to have been made out. The Disciplinary Authority of the management imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the workman. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied of the aforesaid order of dismissal from service, the workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court by the Appropriate Government on the following terms:

“Whether the termination of the services of Lochan Singh is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

3. The statement of claim was filed by the workman alleging therein that the enquiry was vitiated due to non-compliance of the principles of natural justice as he was not even given the opportunity to defend himself, the day to day proceedings of the enquiry were not given to him; and the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him as such his dismissal is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary.

4. The claim was controverted by the management wherein except for admitting that the workman was their employee, in the statement of defence all allegations of the workman were denied. It was submitted that there was a charge of fraud of Rs.75.50p against the workman while working as a conductor for which the domestic enquiry was held and on the basis of findings of the Enquiry Officer, the services of the workman were terminated. The enquiry was held in a fair and proper way after observing the principles of natural justice. It was also submitted that the copy of the enquiry report was duly supplied to the workman alongwith the show cause notice. No reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the workman, hence he was given personal hearing on 31.07.1990. It was only thereafter that the order for termination of service was passed. It was also alleged that the workman was earlier awarded as many as 25 punishments. Besides that, 5 more cases pertaining to absence from duty and embezzlement of amounts were pending.

5. On the aforesaid pleadings, following issues were framed by the Labour Court:

(i) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was fair and proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice?

(ii) As per the terms of reference.

6. Both the parties led their respective evidence. The issue pertaining to the enquiry was treated as preliminary issue. Vide order dated 27.04.2002, the Labour Court decided the enquiry issue against the management on the ground that the workman was not provided list of documents and the list of witnesses. Moreover, the Enquiry Officer acted as presenting officer. That being so, the management failed to observe the principles of natural justice.

7. After the enquiry issue was decided against the management,