IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

224 Decided on :29.07.2025 AJAIB SINGH . .Petitioner Versus INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL PATIALA AND ORS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 2 & 3.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the Award dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure P-2) by which, the claim raised by the petitioner that his services have wrongly been terminated by the respondent-department, has been rejected and his claim for reinstatement, continuity in service and full back-wages has been denied and the findings which have been recorded by the labour Court is against the petitioner, which is causing prejudice.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though, in the present case, the charge-sheet dated 28.04.1997 was served upon the petitioner with the allegations that the petitioner has misappropriated Rs. 52/- by not issuing the tickets to 13 passenger on route Patiala to Bassi on 19.03.1997, but said charge has only been proved against the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 28/- hence, the petitioner-conductor had only committed theft of Rs. 24/-, the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service dated 30.03.1999 (Annexure P-1) is disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved against the petitioner-conductor and therefore, the labour Court failed to modify the punishment of dismissal from service imposed against the petitioner despite having jurisdiction to do so under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to 1947 Act).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under similar circumstances, the other conductors, on whom the similar charges were alleged and proved, the lessor punishment has been imposed upon them and therefore, on this account also, the petitioner-conductor has been discriminated and which fact has been ignored by the labour Court vide award dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure P-2) while upholding the order of punishment of dismissal passed against the petitioner by the respondent-

department.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that once a charge- sheet dated 28.04.1997 has been served upon the petitioner for embezzlement of Rs. 52/- and the embezzlement has been proved. Even if, the same has been proved qua Rs. 28/-, the same is good enough to impose punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that once, the embezzlement of Rs.28/- is proved against the petitioner, the major punishment imposed upon the petitioner is as per the settled principle of law. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Labour Court has appreciated all the facts and material evidence which have been brought on record while declining the claim of reinstatement, continuity in service alongwith full backwages the petitioner, hence, the impugned award dated

08.02.2013 (Annexure P-2) is liable to be upheld.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that this Court will not have jurisdiction to amend the punishment especially when the allegations of embezzlement have been proved against the employee concerned.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

8. The petitioner was proceeded against for the allegations of embezzlement of Rs. 52/- for not issuing the tickets to 13 passengers. The said allegations were made subject matter of the departmental proceedings and it is a conceded fact that in the departmental proceedings embezzlement of Rs. 28/- is proved , on the basis of which, the punishment of dismissal from service have been awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 30.03.1999 (Annexure P-1).

9. The question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once, the allegations of embezzlement of Rs. 52/- wa