Dismissed

Rajwant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Mar 2014CWP/12848/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that terminated a workman's services for embezzlement and absenteeism. The Court held that the finding was based on well-reasoned evidence and total loss of faith, and interfered only in limited circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed in limine without interference in the Labour Court's award.

Rajwant Singh Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No. 12848 of 2013 (O & M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 12848 of 2013 (O & M) Date of decision: 11.03.2014

Rajwant Singh

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶11

Present: Mr. G.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner.

¶12

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)

¶13

C.M. No. 2766 of 2014

¶14

Application for placing on record order dated 23.05.2000 passed by Special Secretary, Coop. (Appeals) Punjab as Annexure P-5 is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

The said Annexure is taken on record.

¶16

CWP No. 12848 of 2013

¶17

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 30.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Patiala whereby, the reference was answered against the workman by holding that his services were terminated in a proper and justified manner on account of the fact that he had remained absent from duty and also embezzled the funds of the society, which were recovered by him from the members of the society but not deposited in the bank account of the society and nor with the society. Accordingly, a finding was recorded that the misconduct of

¶18

Gupta Shivani 2014.03.20 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

CWP No. 12848 of 2013 (O & M)

¶20

¶21

embezzlement as well as absenteeism on the part of the workman stood fully proved.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially issue no. 2 which pertained to the fact that whether the services of the workman were terminated after holding fair and proper inquiry was decided in his favour on 01.09.2005 and thereafter the finding has been recorded against the workman on the statement of one Chandi Ram, Secretary of the respondentsociety, who was examined as MW-2. It is submitted that Chandi Ram had replaced the petitioner as Secretary and, therefore, was an interested witness and reliance upon his statement was not justified.

¶23

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the said argument.

¶24

A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the petitioner had worked as a Secretary from 01.01.1987 to 14.11.1993 with the respondent-society. He alleged that his services were terminated on 15.11.1993 without following the proper procedure and without inquiry and that the principles of natural justice had not been complied with.

¶25

The society, in its defence, took the plea that he had absented from duty on 19.03.1993 without leave or proper intimation and was placed under suspension on 15.07.1993 and proceedings were initiated against him after suspension and notices were served through registered post but the same were returned with the report that the addressee was not available at home. An ex parte inquiry was conducted against him on account of being absent without getting leave sanctioned and for embezzling the funds of the society and he was dismissed from service. Warrant had been issued for his non-payment of the embezzled amount and his appeal had been dismissed Gupta Shivani 2014.03.20 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶26

CWP No. 12848 of 2013 (O & M)

¶27

¶28

and the order passed by the society was upheld in revision by the Special Secretary, Cooperation (A), Punjab on 23.05.2000.

¶29

On the basis of the evidence of the management witness, vide order dated 01.09.2005, the Labour Court held that the departmental inquiry was not fair and proper. However, thereafter keeping in view the procedure laid down in M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India (P) Ltd. vs. Management and others, (1973) 1 SCC 813, the Labour Court examined Chandi Ram, Secretary as MW-2, who produced various awards against the petitioner i.e. Exs. R-13 to R-25 and copy of the charge sheet Ex. R-5.

¶30

The workman also stepped into witness box as his own witness and deposed as per his claim petition and took the plea that he had left his village due to his father being killed by terrorists.

¶31

After taking into account the evidence, the Labour Court came to a finding of fact that the charge of absence from duty stood proved and there was nothing to show that he had filed any leave application and neither death certificate of his father and brothers had been brought on record nor he had examined any witness from the village to corroborate the said fact. The awards for recovery of different amounts were taken into consideration and the warrants on account of the non-deposit of the amounts awarded. Accordingly, a finding was recorded that there was embezzlement of funds which stood proved by an ex parte enquiry and that he had remained absent from duty. The argument that the petitioner had worked for a long time was rejected on the ground that in cases of misappropriation, the question of reconsidering the punishment would not arise and substituting the punishment was not possible. Resultantly, the reference Gupta Shivani 2014.03.20 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶32

CWP No. 12848 of 2013 (O & M)

¶33

¶34

was decided against the workman.

¶35

The said award, thus, records a factual finding, which has been recorded against the petitioner-workman and not liable to be interfered with. The submission that Chandi Ram was interested witness was never argued before the Labour Court and now for the first time, such an argument cannot be allowed to be raised. Even a perusal of the cross examination of Chandi Ram, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-4, would go on to show that nothing was put to Chandi Ram as to whether he was interested witness and whether the said record was not correct. Therefore, the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage. The Labour Court was well justified in declining to interfere with the order of punishment on the principle that once there has been total loss of faith in the employee, the question of granting any benefit, despite his long service, cannot be considered.

¶36

A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. A.L.Mohan Rao 2006 (1) SCC 63 held that it is not for the High Court to replace the order of termination, while examining the award of the Labour Court. The dismissal of the bank employee, in that case, was for grant of fictitious loan and the High Court had directed that there will be reinstatement, without any back wages and without any continuity of service, for the purposes of terminal benefits. It was, thus, held that once the enquiry was proper and misconduct had been proved, it cannot be held that termination of service is not appropriate punishment.

¶37

In Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Vs. Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal 2008 (2) SCT 174 it was held that the Labour Court and the High Court were not justified in taking the view that the punishment was Gupta Shivani 2014.03.20 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶38

CWP No. 12848 of 2013 (O & M)

¶39

¶40

disproportionate once it was found that the Conductor had not issued tickets to about half of the passengers travelling in the bus. In Divisional Manager, Rajasthan S.R.T.C. Vs. Kamruddin 2009 (7) SCC 552 it was noticed that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the employee for similar misconduct, for the fifth time and therefore, it would be misplaced sympathy in ordering reinstatement.

¶41

Resultantly, this court is of the opinion that there is no scope for interference in the well reasoned order passed by the Labour Court and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶42

11.03.2014 shivani

¶43

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶44

Gupta Shivani 2014.03.20 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Rajwant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajwant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Randhir Verma Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Shyam Sunder Yadav Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

M/S Nirankari Beej Store Vs Director Agri, Haryana etc.

Dinesh Kumar Vs P.O. & Anr.

M.v.Akalgarh Coop.Agri.Service Vs State of Punjab etc.

Dharam Bir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.