Dismissed

Raja Ram v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Nov 2011LPA/1563/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Single Judge and the Labour Court that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper, rejecting the appellant's claim regarding non-disclosure of the inquiry report.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the concurrent findings of below courts; dismissal of appeal upheld.

Raja Ram Vs Presiding Officer… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH

¶3

LPA No. 1563 of 2011

¶4

Date of Decision: November 8, 2011

Raja Ram

…Appellant

Versus

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

¶12

Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

M.M. KUMAR, Acg.C.J.

¶16

The instant appeal at the instance of workmanpetitioner, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment dated 13.7.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the award of the Labour Court dated 25.10.2010 (P-11) and order dated 2.9.2008 (P10), whereby preliminary issue against the workmanpetitioner has been decided holding that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper.

¶17

It is appropriate to mention that on 30.3.1979, an incident took place when Shri Chand Ram asked the

¶18

LPA No. 1563 of 2011

¶19

¶20

petitioner-appellant to set the machine in order and the petitioner-appellant became furious when the request was repeated. He started abusing Shri Chand Ram and caught hold of him by his neck and slapped him. Citing the aforesaid incident, a show cause notice was issued and the petitioner-appellant was placed under suspension during the pendency of the inquiry proceedings, vide order dated 12/17.4.1979 (P-1). After obtaining reply of the petitionerappellant an Enquiry Officer was appointed (P-2). In the inquiry, he was found guilty which eventually led to the passing of order of dismissal after obtaining due permission from the Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad. Thereafter reference was made and an order was passed on the preliminary issue whether the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper (P-3).

¶21

According to order dated 2.9.2008 (P-10), the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, found that the petitioner-appellant could not produce any cogent and sufficient evidence on the file to prove that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper. Even in the award dated 25.10.2010, the view taken by the management was accepted and it was held that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper and dismissal was upheld. The learned Single Judge has also upheld the aforesaid two orders.

¶22

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant at considerable length and are of the view that there is no justifiable reason warranting

¶23

LPA No. 1563 of 2011

¶24

¶25

interference in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The argument that a copy of the inquiry report has not been furnished to the petitioner-appellant would not require any detailed consideration because no prejudice is shown to have been caused. Even otherwise there is no scope for the workman to indulge in in-discipline and violence. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

¶26

(M.M. KUMAR) Acting Chief Justice

¶27

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) November 8, 2011 Judge PKapoor

Raja Ram v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Ram v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal & 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

Ram Sawroop Vs Sikandar Singh

Satya Rishi Pal Vs State of Haryana

M/S Geo Miller & Co.(P) Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Faquir Chand Vs Food Corporation of India and Ors.

President, Hary. Nurses Registration Council & Anr. Vs Jyoti Rani and Ors.

Registrar, Hry. Nurses Registration Council & Anr. Vs Saraswati and Ors.