107+211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19204 of 2017 Date of Decision : 07-03-2025 THE DIRECTOR STATE TRANSPORT PUNJAB, AND ANOTHER ........Petitioner(s)

VERSUS THE PRESIDENT, PUNJAB ROADWAYS, CHANDIGARH UNION PUNJAB BRANCH AND ANOTHER ........Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Harnek Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Mr. T.P.S Chawla, Sr. DAG Punjab.

***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

CM-16448-CWP-2024

1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that as the main case i.e CWP No. 19204 of 2017 had already been listed for today hence, the present application for preponement may kindly be withdrawn.

2. Application stands dismissed as withdrawn.

CWP No.19204 of 2017

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the award passed by the Labour Court dated 28.03.2016, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-5 by which, the order of punishment bearing No.14769-73 imposed upon the respondent No.1 on 27.09.1996 , order dated 18.09.2000 bearing order No.16366-68 and order dated 22.10.1999 bearing order No.17082 have been held to be illegal and have been set aside with the consequential benefits to the workman.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the punishment orders dated 27.09.1996, 22.10.1999 and 18.09.2000 were passed by the Tribunal and in the absence of any challenge to the said punishment by the workman as even the grievance regarding the punishment orders was raised by the Union and not the workman himself and that too in the year 2006 i.e. after a period of more than 10 years after the passing the punishment orders, the same have been set aside by the Tribunal vide its impugned order on the ground that the punishment orders dated 27.09.1996, 22.10.1999 and 18.09.2000 were bad in law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1852 of 1989 with Civil Appeal No.4772 of 1989 titled “State of Punjab Vs. Gurdev Singh and Ashok Kumar” decided on 21.08.1991, wherein it has been held that in the absence of any challenge to the punishment order within the prescribed limitation period, the Court could not have looked into the said aspect.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Union submits that once the punishment orders dated 27.09.1996, 22.10.1999 and 18.09.2000 passed were illegal, the grievance raised on behalf of the respondent-workman has rightly been answered by the Tribunal hence, the same be upheld.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present case with their able assistance.

6. It may be noticed that the punishment orders dated 27.09.1996, 22.10.1999 and 18.09.2000 were passed in the departmental proceeding which were conducted against the workman. The reference was raised by the Union and not by the workman themselves so as to declare that the increment of the workman were stopped arbitrarily. The punishment orders dated 27.09.1996, 22.10.1999 and 18.09.2000 were not directly under challenge in the claim petition but the prayer was to release the increments in the salary which have been stopped.

7. The ground was raised by the petitioner that the challenge to the punishment orders dated 27.09.1996, 22.10.1999 and 18.09.2000 after a period of 10 years cannot be entertained especially when there were specific orders passed imposing punishment. The Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the reference raised by the Union cannot be defeated merely on the ground of delay. By passing the said orders, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gurdev Singh’s case (supra), wherein it has been held that even the void order is to be challenged within a period of 3 years, has been ignored by the Labour Court. The relevant paragraph Nos.4, 8 and

11 of the said judgment is as under:-

“XXX......4. First of all, to say that the suit is not governed by the law of limitation runs afoul