IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 02.09.2025 M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd. …Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-I, Gurgaon and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate and Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Lalit Rishi, Advocate for Ms. Deepali Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, cast under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the order dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Labour Court concerned, wherethrough, it has answered the preliminary issue in favour of the workman, and it was held that the petitioner/Management, has not conducted fair and proper enquiry.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such findings have been recorded, merely, on account of failure of the petitioner/Management, to produce the enquiry report, whereas, the entire enquiry proceedings have been produced as Exh.MW-1/1, and therefore, the learned Tribunal concerned, ought to have examined the above exhibit in its right perspective and merely, because the final enquiry report has been lost, the adverse inference should not have been taken against the petitioner/Management.

3. He further draws the attention of this Court, towards various documents to submit, that in fact, the enquiry report was made available to the workman, which fact was duly admitted by him, even, in the cross-examination also, and therefore, the learned Tribunal concerned, should have passed a direction upon the workman, to produce it on record. Further, the onus of this issue was upon the workman, to establish that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law, and accordingly, it is for the workman to place on record the corroborative evidence, and onus cannot be shift upon the petitioner/Management.

4. He also draws the attention of this Court, towards the second show cause notice, issued on 13.08.2001. The said show cause notice carries a specific mentioning that the enquiry report of 90 pages is enclosed with it, and this fact has never been refuted by the workman, rather, in reply to the show cause notice (supra), the workman has admitted the fact of receipt of the enquiry report, which is clear from the reply (Annexure P-8). He further submits that in the demand notice, as well as, in the claim petition, the workman has never set up a case with the pleadings that no enquiry report was handed over to him. He submitted that the moment he came to know that the petitioner/Management has lost the original enquiry report, he filed an application on 17.10.2006, before the learned Tribunal concerned, for passing a direction upon the petitioner/Management, to produce the original enquiry report. Even, in the replication, the workman though has challenged the findings of Enquiry Officer, but have not pleaded that the enquiry report has not been supplied to him. Finally, he draws the attention of this Court, towards the cross-examination, wherein he admitted that show cause notice dated 13.08.2001, along with the enquiry report was served upon him. He submits that all the above clinching evidence clearly establish that the workman was duly served with the enquiry report, and since the onus of this issue, as claimed by the learned Tribunal concerned, was upon workman, he should have placed this on record.

5. The submissions as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been strongly refuted by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.2/workman. He submits that the enquiry report, which he has received, has in fact, been lost and therefore, he cannot be subjected to produce the same, as the custodian of the original enquiry report is the petitioner/Management.

6. In the instant case, the respondent No.2/workman, was engaged with the petitioner/Management, for a per