IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (103+215) CM-1176-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-3366-2012 (O&M)

Date of Decision : January 30, 2025 Mukhtiar Singh .. Petitioner Versus Central Institute of Hand Tools and others .. Respondents (2) CWP-22044-2011 Karnail Singh (deceased) through LRs .. Petitioners Versus Central Institute of Hand Tools and others .. Respondents (3) CWP-23711-2011 Kamal Nettar .. Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Ranjit Singh Ghuman, Advocate, and Ms. Shashi Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP-3366-2012.

Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Laxman Choudhary, Advocate and Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP-22044-2011.

Mr. G.P.S Bal, Advocate, with Mr. Shubham Makkar, Advocate and Mr. Sahil Gamal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP-23711-2011.

None for the respondents.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

CM-1176-CWP-2025 As prayed for, the application is allowed.

CM-4667-CWP-2015 As prayed for, the application is allowed.

Annexures P-11 and P-12 are taken on record. CWP-3366-2012 (O&M) & connected cases

1. By this common order, three writ petitions, the details of which have been given in the heading, are being disposed of as all these petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts.

2. In the present bunch of petitions, the challenge is to the Award passed by the Labour Court dated 04.08.2011 by which, the challenge to the order of termination qua the petitioner(s) has been declined.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) argues that in the present case, despite the fact that no incident happened but as the Management wanted to throw the petitioners out of service, false allegations were alleged and proved against them so as to terminate the services of the petitioner(s), which fact has been ignored by the Labour Court while declining the prayer of the petitioner(s) for setting aside the order terminating their services at the hands of the respondents.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner(s) argues that in the present case, Janak Raj, who was the Watchman and was present at the incident spot did not support the allegations alleged by Baljinder Singh that he was manhandled by the petitioner(s) and beaten hence, the allegation that any incident of beating of Baljinder Singh happened at the hands of the petitioner(s) was wrongly been alleged and proved by the Enquiry Officer during the departmental proceedings and the statement of Janak Raj has been ignored not only by Enquiry Officer but even by the Labour Court also while rejecting the claim of the petitioner(s) qua setting aside the termination order.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) further submits that there is no evidence on record to prove the allegation of misconduct on the part of petitioner(s) and as it is a case of no evidence, the allegation proved by the Enquiry Officer of misconduct leading to the termination of the services of the petitioner(s) was bad and the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) qua no evidence, has not been dealt with by the Labour Court in a correct perspective so as to reject their claim for setting aside the termination orders.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

7. The petitioner(s) were proceeded against by the respondent- institute for misconduct and a departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner(s) wherein, the allegations alleged against them were partly proved and punishment of dismissal from service was imposed and thereafter, the departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner(s), which was also rejected and ultimately, the said grievance was raised before the Labour Court so as to challenge the order of termination.

8. The Labour Court after appreciating the evidence, which has come on record, held that once the services of the petitione