227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28363-2013 Date of Decision : 20.04.2026 VIJAY KUMAR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH Lrs.

.....Petitioners VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATIALA AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate, for respondents no.2 to 4.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)

1. The reference, which was answered against the workman (since deceased), vide impugned Award dated 19.12.2012 (Annexure P- 1), by the learned Industrial Tribunal (respondent no.1), caused grievance to him and propelled him to file the instant writ petition, under Article

226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality thereof.

2. During the pendency of the instant petition, the demise of petitioner-workman, has occurred and now it is being contested by his legal representatives, who are, his widow, and son.

3. The petitioner-workman was terminated from service by the respondents no.2 to 4-management, on account of unauthorised absence from duty. The act of termination of services of the petitioner-workman, has been challenged on various grounds, inter alia the legality of the departmental inquiry conducted by the respondents-management. However, the learned Tribunal, while holding that the departmental enquiry had been conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice, upheld the same as legal and valid, and consequently answered the reference against the workman.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made strenuous efforts to challenge the Award on the ground that the departmental enquiry was conducted ex parte and that the petitioner-workman was not duly served with notice, intimating him regarding the initiation of the enquiry proceedings. He, therefore, submitted that the enquiry proceedings stood vitiated, as the concerned authority failed to comply with the principles of natural justice by not affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-workman.

5. He further submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner-workman for unauthorised absence from duty is grossly disproportionate. Elaborating his arguments, he submitted that the petitioner-workman was appointed by the respondents-management as a Technical Assistant on 06.04.1976, and was terminated from service on 26.02.1992. Therefore, having served the respondents-management for nearly two decades, the punishment of termination on account of unauthorised absence is highly disproportionate and excessive. He contended that the learned Tribunal failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Consequently, the impugned Award warrants interference.

6. He finally placed reliance upon judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Pepsu Road Transport Corp. vs. Rawel Singh” 2008 (4) SCC 42, and, “Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and another”, 2012 (2) SCT 572, wherein, it was held that dismissal of a workman merely on the ground of absence for a few days amounts to a punishment that is grossly disproportionate and excessively harsh.

7. No other arguments were raised on behalf of the petitioner-

workman.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4- management, vehemently opposed the submissions, as made by learned counsel for the petitioner, and submitted that the impugned order has rightly been passed, and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, therefore, requires no interference.

9. This Court has examined the rival submissions, as made learned counsel for the parties concerned and perused the entire case filse.

10. In the instant case, the facts of the case assume significance and therefore, require detailed discussion herein.

i. The petitioner-workman was appointed as a Technical Assistant on 06.04.1976. He applied for leave alongwith station leave on 18.08.1989, through an application (Ex.M6)