IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement:10.12.2025 Date of uploading: 11.12.2025 DESHBIR SINGH -PETITIONER V/S PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-III, FARIDABAD AND ANOTHER -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Contesting respondent no.2 proceeded against ex parte.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. Through the instant petition cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-workman challenges the enquiry dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure P-7), as also the order dated 17.12.2012 (Annexure P-15), wherethrough, the preliminary issue, as to “whether the enquiry conducted by management was not fair and proper?, was decided against him by learned Industrial Tribunal (respondent no.1), holding the enquiry proceedings to be legally sustainable. The petitioner further, seeks quashing of an Award dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P-16), whereby, the reference was answered against him.

2. The principal argument, as raised before this Court, in an attempt to throw challenge to aforesaid order as well as Award (supra), as made by learned counsel for the petitioner-workman, is that the enquiry officer deliberately fixed the place of enquiry at Okhla-Delhi at 5:00 P.M., despite the fact that the petitioner-workman was working at village Dudholla, Tehsil and District Palwal (Faridabad). While referring to the letter dated 28.09.2006 (Annexure P-5) and 09.11.2006 (Annexure P-6), he submits that a specific request was made by the petitioner-workman to the enquiry officer, either to change the place of enquiry, or in alternate, pay him Rs.2,500/- per hearing so that he could meet all the expenses, as well as the fee of an advocate to attend the enquiry proceedings at the place of enquiry at Delhi. However, the said request of the petitioner- workman was not acceded to. Therefore, he submits that the enquiry was conducted from the very inception with a biased and predetermined mind, and that too at the behest of respondent no.2-management.

3. The next argument, as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner-workman's request for supplying list of documents and witnesses relied upon by respondent no.2-management were not supplied to him despite repeated requests. Further, on account of not providing any adequate financial assistance, the petitioner-workman, was unable to join the enquiry proceedings, and consequently, he was proceeded against ex parte.

4. Since no one appeared on behalf of the management before the learned Tribunal concerned, to defend the case, therefore, only the enquiry officer stepped into the witness box, and tendered all the documents including the enquiry report. Therefore, in absence of any supporting evidence, the learned Tribunal concerned, ought to have decided the preliminary issue in favour of the petitioner-workman.

5. Finally, he submits that the enquiry officer was not an employee of respondent no.2-management, rather, he was an advocate who conducted the enquiry, who generally appears on behalf of the management to defend their cases before various courts, therefore, he was not an independent enquiry officer.

6. The respondent no.2-management, on an earlier occasion was represented by an advocate, before this Court, however, it was proceed ex parte vide order dated 03.05.2024.

7. This Court has considered the submissions, as made by learned counsel for the petitioner-workman, and with his able assistance, has perused the impugned orders as well as Award.

8. Before proceeding further, and to check the legality of the Award (supra), lets have glimpse upon the facts, qua which there is no wrangle amongst the parties concerned:-

i. The petitioner-workman, was engaged by respondent no.2-management as a Security Guard on 15.10.1996, as he agreed to sell them his land, subject to the condition that one member from his family would be given