Dismissed

General Manager, Haryana Roadways Hisar v. Prem Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Sept 2010CWP/14575/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that reinstated a roadways workman. The State argued the inquiry was flawed due to unreliable witness testimony and lack of opportunity to prove misconduct. The High Court found the inquiry bad and dismissed the petition, rejecting the State's appeal against the award. Thin order dismissing the Writ Petition without explicit reference to constitutio

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed rejecting State's challenge to Labour Court award awarding reinstatement and backwages.

General Manager, Haryana Roadways… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.14575 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No.14575 of 2009 Date of decision: September 22, 2010

¶5

General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Prem Singh and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Jatinder Nara, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

¶13

RANJIT SINGH J.

¶14

The respondent-workman was appointed as Conductor in the Haryana Roadways, Yamunanagar. He is alleged to have embezzled sum of Rs. 68/- of Government money by not issuing tickets to ten passengers after collected money from them. He was, accordingly, charged sheeted under Rule 7 of CSR on 30.01.1996. After considering his reply, inquiry officer was detailed who submitted his report on 23.10.1998. He found the respondent/workman guilty of charges levelled against him. There was another complaint of embezzlement against the respondent/workman for which he was also proceeded against under Rule 7 of CSR and this pertains to the year 1991. The show cause notice for terminating the services was issued to the respondent-workman and after affording opportunity of personal hearing, the services were terminated on 26.06.2001. The respondent filed an appeal, which was rejected on 15.02.2002. He

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No.14575 of 2009 2

¶16

then served a demand notice on 29.04.2003 and ultimately the dispute was referred for adjudication before the labour Court. The labour Court has now passed an award on 05.03.2009 holding that the services of the workman were illegally terminated. The respondent-workman has been held entitled to reinstatement with 50% backwages and all the consequential benefits. The State has, therefore, come forward to challenge this award.

¶17

The petitioner-State had mainly relied on the inquiry held against the petitioner. The inquiry proceedings were led in evidence before the labour Court and the labour Court found that the inquiry officer has mainly relied upon the statement of Sh. Gajay Singh, Sub Inspector. This witness while giving evidence had deposed that at the time of checking, the bus was full to its capacity. He further stated that he has no idea as to from which village the passengers boarded the bus. No witness was examined by the inquiry officer. No passenger was also summoned. Sh. Gajay Singh, Sub Inspector, who appeared as witness deposed that he has checked the bus with Sh. Hawa Singh and while under cross examination admitted that the bus was carrying 60 passengers and he did not check the bag of the conductor for verifying the cash. He even did not sign the report Ex.M-1. He also pleaded ignorance about the fact that his statement was recorded by the inquiry officer or not. Rather, he was not associated with the inquiry by the inquiry officer while conducting inquiry against the workman. In this background, his statement was considered as highly unbelievable and doubtful. On the basis of this evidence, the inquiry was held to be bad. No opportunity was sought to prove the misconduct before the labour Court and the termination,

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No.14575 of 2009

¶19

¶20

accordingly, was set aside.

¶21

Mr. Rathee after checking the record has confirmed that no permission was sought for proving the misconduct before the labour Court. Once the inquiry was held bad, the necessary consequences has to follow. I am not inclined to interfere in the award.

¶22

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶23

September 22, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE

General Manager, Haryana Roadways Hisar v. Prem Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

General Manager, Haryana Roadways Hisar v. Prem Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramanpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mehar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Raghav Gomber Vs Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra and Anr.

Tej Pal Vs State Ofhy.

Neeraj Kumar Dhaka Vs Union of India an Dors.

Ishwar Dayal Vs P.O., Labour Court, Ambala & Ors.