Dismissed¶6

Bhuna Cooperative Sugar Mills through Its M.D v. Pradeep Kumar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jul 2025CWP/3225/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-3225-1998 (O&M); Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; Bhuna Co-operative Sugar Mill, Bhuna v Pradeep Kumar and another; probationer termination; no enquiry held despite charge sheet dated 29.03.1993; termination order dated 08.09.1993 during probation; reinstatement with full back wages from demand notice dated 29.09.1993 and continuity of service; award dated 24.09.1997 of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar upheld; no perversity found; writ petition dismissed on 10.07.2025; Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the Labour Court award reinstating the respondent-workman with full back wages and continuity of service stands undisturbed. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also disposed of. ¶6

Bhuna Cooperative Sugar Mills through Its M.D Vs Pradeep Kumar and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the award dated 24.09.1997 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar reinstating the respondent-workman with full back wages and continuity of service should be interfered with by this Court. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mill could not prove that the findings recorded by the Labour Court were perverse to the pleadings and evidence; in the absence of any perversity, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Where allegations are to be made the basis of termination, an enquiry has to be held by following due procedure and giving due opportunity to the workman to defend himself/herself.

¶5

Key takeaways

No enquiry was conducted, despite issuance of the charge sheet, to prove the allegations before terminating the services of the respondent-workman.ratio¶5
The view taken by the Labour Court that the termination was illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the settled principle of law cannot be treated to be incorrect or to need any interference at the hands of this Court.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition dismissed - High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Harsimran Singh Sethi, J., oral, 10.07.2025) declines to interfere with the award dated 24.09.1997 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar reinstating a probationer Mechanic of Bhuna Co-operative Sugar Mill with full back wages from the demand notice dated 29.09.1993 and with continuity of service. Although the workman was suspended (order dated 24.11.1992), charge-sheeted (29.03.1993) and served a show cause notice during probation, no enquiry was conducted to prove the allegations before his termination dated 08.09.1993; termination resting on allegations without such enquiry being contrary to the settled principle of law, the Labour Court's finding of illegality and arbitrariness was upheld, and with no perversity in the award demonstrated, the writ petition was dismissed.

¶1

CWP-3225-1998 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

221 CWP-3225-1998 (O&M) Date of Decision :10.07.2025

¶5

Bhuna Co-operative Sugar Mill, Bhuna

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Pradeep Kumar and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶11

Present: Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

None for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

¶15

In the present petition, challenge is to the award dated 24.09.1997 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar by which, the respondent-workman has been reinstated in service with full back wages from the date of demand notice dated 29.09.1993 with continuity in service on the ground that the termination of the services of the respondent-workman was illegal, invalid and unjustified.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mill submits that the respondent-workman was appointed as Mechanic with the petitioner-Mill in the year 1992 on probation with certain conditions and as during the period of probation, his work and conduct was not satisfactory therefore, his

¶17

AARTI SHARMA 2025.07.15 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-3225-1998 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

services were terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mill further submits that any services terminated during the probation period, will not amount to termination and therefore, the said fact has been ignored by the Labour Court while passing the award dated 24.09.1997 (Annexure P/1) so as to record a finding that the termination of the services of the respondentworkman was illegal and arbitrary.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Mill and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

¶22

It is a conceded position that the respondent-workman appointed in the year 1992 vide Annexure P/2 and he was on probation. During the period of probation, the petitioner-Mill itself passed an order dated 24.11.1992 (Annexure P/3) making certain allegations against the respondent-workman that he is not sincerely performing his duties and he is always found absent from duty without prior permission of the authorities and a strict action should be taken against him. Further it was mentioned that workman should be placed under suspension and ultimately he was suspended by the Managing Director of the petitioner-Mill. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 29.03.1993 (Annexure P4) was also served upon the respondent-workman. Thereafter, the respondent-workman was sought to be transferred whereas, it was recommended that he should be dismissed from service. Ultimately, a show cause notice was given to him as to why his services be not terminated and ultimately, the services of the respondentworkman were terminated vide order dated 08.09.1993 during the probation period by making allegations.

¶23

It may be noticed that in case, the allegations are to be made

¶24

AARTI SHARMA 2025.07.15 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CWP-3225-1998 (O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

basis of termination, an enquiry has to be held by following due procedure and giving due opportunity to the workman to defend himself/herself.

¶28

Keeping in view the fact that there was no enquiry conducted depsite issuance of charge sheet before terminating the services of the respondent-workman to prove the allegations, the view taken by the Labour Court that same was illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the settled principle of law, cannot be treated to be incorrect or needs any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mill has not been able to prove that the findings recorded by the Labour Court while passing the award dated 24.09.1997 (Annexure P/1) are perverse to the pleadings and evidence brought on record. In the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the award passed by the Labour Court, no ground for interference by this Court is made out and the present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of.

¶31

July 10, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) aarti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

¶32

AARTI SHARMA 2025.07.15 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Bhuna Cooperative Sugar Mills through Its M.D v. Pradeep Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuna Cooperative Sugar Mills through Its M.D v. Pradeep Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balwinder Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Manjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Vivek Modi Vs State of Punjab and Others

Steel Strips Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court and Others

Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Engineering College, Chandigarh Road, Fatehgarh Sahib Vs State of Punjab and Others

M/S Vr Mohan Dev Public School Vs Presiding Officer (in the Rank of Additional District Judge) and Another