C.W.P.No.15749 of 2008

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

C.W.P.No.15749 of 2008

Date of Decision:- 03.03.2009

Ram Niranjan

....Petitioner(s)

vs.

The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon and others

....Respondent(s)

***

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

***

Present:-

Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Ashwani Chopra, Sr.Advocate with

Mr.Rohit Khanna, Advocate for the respondents.

***

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to award dated

31.12.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Gurgaon, vide which the reference has been answered against the

workman on the ground that the enquiry held against the workman was in

accordance with law and the punishment awarded to him is fully justified

and does not call for any interference by the Labour Court.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the

Labour Court dated 6.11.2000 (Annexure P-4) wherein the Labour Court

came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry held by the Management

is fair and proper, is not sustainable on the ground that the Inquiry Officer

appointed by the Management was a Junior Counsel to the Standing

C.W.P.No.15749 of 2008

-2-

Counsel of the Management and he himself had been appearing on behalf

of the Company on various occasions. He further contends that the Inquiry

Officer was biased against the workman and was over-awed by the

Management as he was being obliged by the Management by assigning him

work. He further, while referring to the statement of MW-1

Sh.P.N.Dwivedi, who was the Inquiry Officer, submits that this factual

aspect has been accepted by the Inquiry Officer that he remained junior to

Sh.J.S.Saroha and also admitted that he had been representing the

Management from time to time. He further contends that the Inquiry Officer

has admitted various lapses in the enquiry report which included non-

affixation of signatures on the exhibits and non-marking of the documents

in his own hand as exhibits. He further contends that all this goes a long

way to show that the Inquiry Officer had not conducted the enquiry in a

proper manner nor did he follow the procedure so settled for conducting an

enquiry. He challenges the award dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure P-5) on the

ground that the Labour Court has failed to exercise its powers under Section

11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act by not interfering into the

disproportionate punishments awarded to the workman and, therefore, the

award deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-Management has

contended that the minor discrepancies which have been pointed out by the

counsel for the petitioner in the enquiry file, do not vitiate the enquiry

proceedings as no prejudice has been caused to the workman by these

omissions on the part of the Inquiry Officer. He submits that in the cross-

examination of the Inquiry Officer, it has clearly been mentioned that

although the documents have not signed by him but the proceedings for the

C.W.P.No.15749 of 2008

-3-

day on which the said documents were accepted, indicates the nature of the

documents as well, being taken on record. He submits that the workman

has not been able to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him by

such lapses. In any case, he contends that it is not open to the workman to

challenge the order dated 6.11.2000 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Labour

Court holding therein that the domestic enquiry held by the Management is

fair and proper as the workman had challenged this order before this Court

by way of C.W.P.No.13906 of 2001 decided by this Court on 9.2.2004,

which was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner-workman and,

therefore, the said order has attained finality. He further contends that in the

present writ petition, the workman has