Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gm Haryana Roadways vs Satyawan Singh And Ors on 22 July, 2022
CWP No.11573-2010 1
206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.11573-2010
Date of Decision: 22.07.2022
The General Manager Haryana Roadways ...Petitioner
Versus
Satyawan (since deceased) through his LRs & anr. ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Present: Mr. Harish Rathee, DAG, Haryana
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Abhay, Advocate and
Mr. Omkar Chauhan, Advocate for
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate
for LRs of respondent No.1.
3K 8 Kk
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.(QRAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari/quashing of the order dated 10.04.2008 and impugned award dated
01.05.2009 (Annexures P-8 and P-9) passed by the learned Labour Court,
Rohtak.
2. The facts as involved in the present petition; are that the
respondent-workman was appointed as a_ driver with the
petitioner-department on 23.12.1989. The respondent-workman remained
absent w.e.f. 27.07.1994 and continued to remain as absent till 21.08.1994.
The respondent-workman was issued chargesheet by the _petitioner-
department. Reply having been found not satisfactory, an Enquiry Officer
was appointed on 23.05.1995. Enquiry Officer conducted the proceedings in
the chargesheet against the respondent-workman. Ultimately, the
respondent-workman was held guilty by the Enquiry Officer. Accepting the
enquiry report, the punishing authority had passed the order of dismissal
from service qua the respondent-workman on 23.06.1997. The said action of
MANPREET SINGH
2022.07.26 16:39
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
the petitioner-department was disputed by the respondent-workman. The
dispute having been raised by him, the same was referred to the Labour
Court. The Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the workman
and had ordered the reinstatement of the respondent-workman with 35% of
the back wages and continuity of service. It is against this award that the
present petition has been filed by the petitioner-department.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the award
is totally illegal. The respondent-workman was dismissed from service after
holding a due enquiry. The respondent-workman was granted full
opportunity to defend himself. Finding the sufficient material against the
respondent-workman, the Enquiry officer submitted a report proving the
guilt against the respondent-workman. Even before inflicting the
punishment, the respondent-workman was called for hearing. However, he
did not avail the opportunity to present his case. Accordingly, learned
counsel has further submitted that the Labour Court has wrongly set aside
the enquiry on an assumption that the respondent-workman was not granted
any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the department. The
Enquiry officer has specifically written in the report that opportunity was
granted to the respondent-workman to cross-examine the witnesses of the
petitioner-department, however, he had refused to cross-examine the
witnesses. Once the opportunity is granted by the Enquiry Officer, then it is
for the delinquent employee whether he wishes to cross-examine or not.
However, the finding by the Labour Court that no opportunity was granted
to cross-examine the witnesses is factually incorrect. The respondent-
workman had remained willfully absent without any due intimation to the
department. Hence, the respondent-workman was rightly dismissed from
service.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-workman
has submitted that the enquiry proceedings were rightly set aside by the
Labour Court. The respondent-workman was suffering from an ailment. The
medical certificate to that effect was submitted to the department. However,
that was not accepted by the department and was wrongly rejected by the
department on the pretext that it was not issued by any government doctor.
Learned counsel has further submitted that since a medical certificate was
duly submitted by the respondent-workman, he cannot be deemed to be as
vanpreet sincHWillful absent. Learned counsel has further submitted that even if the enquiry
Taitoat to the accu racy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
was held to be bad, the petitioner-department was free to prove the
misconduct against the respondent-workman. However, even before the
Labour Court, sufficient material has not been led by way of an evidence to
substantiate the willful absence on the part of the respondent-workman.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the award is rightly passed by the Labour
Court.
5. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this Court does not
find any illegality or perversity in the award passed by the Labour Court; as
such. It is not even in dispute that the respondent-workman had remained
absent. However, it was asserted by the respondent-workman that he had
submitted due medical certificate. The said medical certificate is stated to be
rejected on the ground that the said certificate was issued by the private
practitioner and not by any Govt. medical facility. However, as submitted by
the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner-department has failed
to produce any rule which required the medical certificate only from the
Govt. medical facility. Therefore, this Court finds substance in the argument
of the learned counsel for the respondent-workman that the absence of the
workman was not willful. A finding in that regard is rightly so recorded by
the Labour Court.
6. However, the respondent-workman is stated to have expired
during the pendency of the present petition. Therefore, the relief of
re-instatement with any continuity of service is simply ruled out. The only
relief which can now be availed by the legal representatives of the deceased
workman is the financial benefit. Accordingly, the relief granted to the
respondent-workman deserves to be modified from the one of re-instatement
with back wages to that of the grant of compensation, to be paid to the legal
representatives of the deceased workman. Even the learned counsel for the
respondents has submitted that the relief of compensation would satisfy the
current respondents, who are the legal representatives of the respondent-
workman.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the respondent-workman is held entitled to a compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/-(one lakh), which is now to be paid to the widow of the
deceased workman.
8. Ordered accordingly. The award passed by the Labour Court is
MANPREET sincHhodified to that extent.
2022.07.26 16:39
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
9. The amount of compensation is ordered to be released in favour
of the widow of the deceased workman within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed in the above
said terms.
(RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
JUDGE
July 22, 2022
Manpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
MANPREET SINGH
2022.07.26 16:39
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
