Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2564
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, JJ.
Balwinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CM-2296-LPA of 2022 IN/AND LPA-953 of 2022
Decided On : 11-01-2023
Mr. Abhishek Khular, Advocate, for Mr. J.S. Jaidka, Advocate; For the Appellant
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10 - Appeal against punishment of stoppage of increments - Delay of 20 days condoned for filing appeal - Appellant's argument regarding impact on pension considered - No evidence of mala fide; inquiry adhered to rules - Punishment upheld as the inquiry process was fair - Delayed reference of 7 years deemed unjustified - Industrial peace must be maintained. (Paras 1, 4, 10-12)
(B) Appeal - Court's scope in reviewing disciplinary actions - Disciplinary proceedings require rational basis and cannot interfere in findings of fact without exceptional circumstances. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a conductor, faced punishment for not issuing tickets while collecting fares. His appeal against this punishment was filed late, and he later sought the Labour Union's assistance which resulted in a belated reference for review to the Labour Court.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed that the disciplinary inquiry followed due process, and the delay in invoking rights significantly undermined the industrial peace. The decision of the learned Single Judge to decline relief was upheld.
Issues: The primary issues included the delays in the appeal process and whether the inquiry was conducted justly without prejudice against the employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that an industrial dispute must be timely filed, and delayed references disrupt industrial peace and are unwarranted if no valid dispute remains alive. Further, without procedural irregularities or mala fides, disciplinary inquiries’ findings typically must stand.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay in filing appeals. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenge against punishment upheld by labour court. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. appellant's arguments concerning unfair punishment. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. delay in reference negatively impacts industrial peace. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. appeal dismissed; learned single judge's decision affirmed. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
G.S.Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) - CM-2296-LPA-2022
By this application, the applicant-appellant seeks condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the appellant, the application is allowed and the nominal delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
3. CM stands disposed of.
LPA-953-2022
4. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWP-19221-2022, decided on 30.08.2022, wherein the Award dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh was upheld.
5. The appellant-workman was aggrieved against the punishment which had been imposed upon him, i.e. stoppage of 10 increments with cumulative effect. The learned Single Judge found that the labour Court had held the enquiry, in accordance with the rules and on account of the non-examination of passengers travelling the bus, no benefit could be granted in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7536 of 2021, titled as Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport v. Gajadhar Nath , decided on 08.12.2021. The passengers had not been issued tickets and they were de-boarding the bus. The members of the checking party having been duly examined in the inquiry, accordingly, it was held that the case of the employee was of no evidence and there was no allegation of mala fide against anybody levelled by the appellant in the entire process. Furthermore, the appellant has been granted ample opportunity of hearing by the punishing authority, as well as, by the appellate authority, therefore, the writ petition had dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the stoppage of 10 increments are effecting his pension and therefore, he has a right as such to prefer a reference even at a belated stage and it is accordingly, submitted the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, is not justified.
7. We have perused the paper-book and find that the charge-sheet was issued on 28.10.1987 (Annexure P-1) regarding the incident which happened on 06.10.1987. The checking of the bus was done. Resultantly, the employee as such filed his reply dated 11.11.1987 (Annexure P-2) giving his explanation which was not found tenable and an inquiry officer was appointed. The appellant was given a chance as such to question the Government witnesses and he also produced in defence one Charan Singh. Eventually, the inquiry officer gave an adverse report (Annexure P-3) against the employee that the charges levelled against him were found to be true. The competent authority thereafter, examined the report noticing that the checking staff had clearly stated that the Conductor had collected the money from the passengers in advance but did not issue tickets to them. Accordingly, it came to the conclusion that the complainants were the Inspectors and the opinion given by the inquiry officer was correct. It was also noticed that the copy of the final report has been sent along with the show cause notice. The employee was heard before passing the order of punishment and he admitted that he will not do such mistake in future and he be forgiven this time and a chance be given to him to do his job. Resultantly, the punishment as such has been imposed on 18.07.1988 (Annexure P-4) by showing leniency and not dismissing him. He had filed a belated appeal during his service and eventually, vide order dated 04.01.1999 (Annexure P-6), his time barred appeal was dismissed by the Divisi
