Dismissed

Shishu Pal Verma v. Presiding Officer and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Aug 2010CWP/12222/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a terminated workman to shift onus of proving the validity of a domestic enquiry from him to the management. Court dismissed the petition, holding workman must first prove enquiry defectiveness before management can lead fresh evidence.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed against Labour Court order rejecting prayer to shift onus to management for leading evidence on domestic enquiry validity.

Shishu Pal Verma Vs Presiding Officer and Anr. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2009 :{ 1 }:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 02, 2010

Shishu Pal Verma

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶10

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. P. K. Mutneja, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶15

¶16

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶17

The petitioner, who is a workman and is contesting a reference before the Labour Court in regard to termination of his services, has filed this writ petition to impugn the order passed by the Labour Court, whereby his prayer to shift the onus regarding the issue of validity of the departmental enquiry upon management has been dismissed.

¶18

The services of the petitioner were terminated on

¶19

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2009 :{ 2 }:

¶20

3.8.1999. He sought reference of the dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court and the dispute stands referred to the Labour Court. The dispute has been referred to the Labour Court. After completion of the pleadings, one of the issue framed is as under:-

¶21

“Whether enquiry is fair and proper? OPP”

¶22

The petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court with a prayer that the onus to prove this issue be shifted on to the management and the management should be asked to lead evidence.

¶23

This application was contested by the respondentmanagement. The Labour Court has rejected the application of the petitioner by making reference to the decision of this Court in Civil Revision No.6337 of 2006 titled M/s Punjab Tractor Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another , decided on 31.10.2007. While deciding M/s Punjab Tractor Limited case (supra), the Court has relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Shankar Chakarvarti Vs. Britannia Biscuit Company and another, 1979 (2) LLJ 194. As has been viewed in Punjab Tractor Limited's case (supra), if the workman does not lead any evidence in regard to domestic enquiry being vitiated for one reason or the other, it is the workman who would fail as the relationship of employer and employee between the parties has already come to an end. It is accordingly observed that it would be for the workman initially to prove that the domestic enquiry is defective and vitiated. Only then, the case of granting opportunity to the management to prove misconduct afresh would arise.

¶24

The counsel for the petitioner could not say much to

¶25

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2009 :{ 3 }:

¶26

dispute the proposition of law laid down in M/s Punjab Tractor Limited case (supra). Reference can also be made to the case of State Bank of India Vs. R.K.Jain, 1972 (4) SCC 304, where it is held as under:-

¶27

“When a domestic enquiry has been held by the management and the management relies on the same, it is open to the latter to request the Tribunal to try the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and also ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the management. However, elaborate and cumbersome the procedure may be, under such circumstances, it is open to the Tribunal to deal, in the first instance, as a preliminary issue the validity of the domestic enquiry. If its finding on the preliminary issue is in favour of the management, then no additional evidence need be cited by the management. But, if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the management, the Tribunal will have to give the employer an opportunity to cite additional evidence and also give a similar opportunity to the employee to lead evidence contra, as the request to adduce evidence had been made by the management to the Tribunal during the course of the proceedings and before the trial has come to an end.”

¶28

Even number of other judgments in this regard have been referred to and relied upon by this Court in the case of M/s Punjab Tractor Limited case (supra). The issue, thus, is fairly settled and

¶29

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2009 :{ 4 }:

¶30

would not call for any further consideration.

¶31

There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is

¶32

accordingly dismissed.

¶33

August 02, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE

Shishu Pal Verma v. Presiding Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shishu Pal Verma v. Presiding Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usha Rani Vs State of Hy.Tec.

Satbir and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Balak Ram Vs Financial Commissioner & Ors.

Joga Singh & Ors. Vs Addl. Director C/H Punjab etc.

Ashwani Bhatia Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Bhupinder Singh Vs Hssc & Anr.