The central legal point established in the judgment is the justification of the Enquiry Officer's reliance on photocopies of documents in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for substantial material and the application of principles of fairness.

JUDGMENT

Shekher Dhawan, J. - Petitioner-Management has challenged the award dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short, "learned Tribunal") whereby, reference was decided by learned Tribunal in favour of the workman and order dated 30.06.2011 vide which two increments of the workman were stopped with cumulative effect, was set-aside.

2. Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of this writ petition; that the respondent-workman was facing departmental proceedings on the basis of charge sheet and departmental enquiry was conducted against him. The Enquiry Officer held the charges against the workman to be proved and thereafter the competent authority passed the order dated 30.06.2011 and the workman raised the industrial dispute. However, learned Tribunal, after considering the matter in its entirety, decided the reference in favour of the workman on the ground that the Enquiry Officer had gone wrong while placing reliance upon photocopies of some documents which were very essential for the decision of the matter in controversy itself.

3. On this point, learned counsel for the petitioner-Management contended that the original documents were lost and for that purpose, FIR was got registered and whatever material was available with the Management, the same was produced before the Enquiry Officer. Apart from that, the enquiry proceedings were on the basis of statement of members of the Inspecting team and the Enquiry Officer had returned the findings. Thereafter there was no ground for the learned Tribunal to take a different view as the scope for interference in such like disciplinary matters is restricted one.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Workmen of Balmadies Estate Vs. Management, Balmadies Estate & Others , (2008) 4 SCC 517, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in a domestic enquiry, all the materials which are legally probative including hearsay evidence can be acted upon provided it has a reasonable nexus and credibility and even the learned Tribunal had discussed the said judgment in its award, but had taken a just contrary view to that while discarding the photocopies of the documents and recording findings against the report of Enquiry Officer, which was based upon the statement of members of Inspecting Team. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set-aside.

5. While arguing on this point, learned counsel for respondent No.2/workman contended that the present case is squarely covered as per the judgment of this Court in CWP-22282-2015, Chandigarh Administration & Another. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh & Another., decided on 16.10.2015 and in that case also, this Court declined to interfere in the findings recorded by learned Tribunal and to substitute the view and findings were recorded that learned Tribunal had rightly discarded the photocopies of the documents. The matter was then before Hon'ble Division Bench in LPA-73-2016, Chandigarh Administration & Another. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh & Another., decided on 20.12.2016, and the Hon'ble Division Bench while agreeing with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge, dismissed the appeal. As such, the present writ petition deserves dismissal.

6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and appraisal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that most of the facts, especially relevant facts, are not disputed in this case that respondent-workman was involved in disciplinary proceedings, which were initiated against him on the basis of charge sheet and regular enquiry was conducted. During the course of enquiry, reliance was placed upon photostat copies of the documents by Enquiry Officer apart from oral evidence as contention has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that original documents had gone missing and matter was report