Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ghanshyam Dass vs State Of Hy.Etc on 20 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055277
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC::055277
CWP-766-2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
210 CWP-766-2002
Date of Decision:20.04.2024
GHANSHYAM DASS .... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ....Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
*****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.(Oral)
1. Petitioner-Ghanshyam Dass has filed the present writ
petition seeking quashing of the award dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure
P-1) passed in reference No.245 of 1985 filed under Section 10 (1) (c)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'),
whereby petitioner has been denied back wages and his one increment
has also been stopped with cumulative effect and the period i.e. from
the date of removal from service to reinstatement has been ordered to
be treated as suspension period.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/workman submits that
petitioner-Ghanshaym Dass was working with Haryana Roadways,
Karnal as Conductor and vide impugned award dated 24.07.1988
(Annexure P-1), he has been awarded three sentences i.e.
(i) denial of backwages from the date of removal from the service till
the date of award; and
(ii) stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect; and
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055277
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC::055277
(iii) treating the period from removal of service till passing of the
award as suspension period.
Thus, submits that for one act, there could be only one
punishment and awarding of more than one punishments would be hit
by the law of double jeopardy.
3. Pleaded case of the workman is that he worked with the
management as Conductor from the year 1972 till 06.12.1980.
Workman was chargesheeted on the ground that on 08.07.1980, while
performing his duties as Conductor with Bus No.3655, on Panipat and
Haridawar route, he did not issue tickets to four of the passengers
travelling from Panipat to Haridwar and by not charging them, he
misused the official capacity and caused loss to the Government to the
tune of Rs.65.60/-. On the said charges, the enquiry was conducted
and order of dismissal from service was passed.
4. On issuance of demand notice, the industrial dispute was
raised and same was referred to the Labour Court for its adjudication.
The said industrial dispute was decided by Sh.K.K. Doda, learned
Presiding officer, Labour Court, Ambala vide order dated 22.02.1988,
holding that the workman was not entitled to any relief. Thus, in the
first round of litigation, reference was answered against the workman.
5. Feeling aggrieved, workman filed one CWP-11362 of
1988, which was allowed on 12.01.1988, vide which award was
quashed and matter was remanded to the Labour Court for its fresh
decision in the light of observation made in the said judgment.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055277
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC::055277
6. Broadly speaking, Hon'ble High Court directed the
Labour Court to redetermine the punishment imposed by the
Employer because it seemed to be erroneous.
While re-deciding the issue of genuineness of the
punishment, learned Labour Court noticed that the workman served
the Management for about 8 years and there is no material/evidence to
say that he was habitual of this kind of conduct. However, it was also
noticed that though, he allowed four passengers to travel without
ticket from Panipat to Haridwar, but there is no allegation of receiving
the fare and retaining it with himself or accepting money from the
passengers on any account. Thus, considering the totality of the
circumstances, including the conduct of the workman, the observation
regarding the punishment was revisited by the Labour Court and while
exercising the power under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947, the order
qua dismissal of the workman from the service was set aside.
The operative and concluding part of the award dated
24.07.1998 passed by learned Labour Court is reproduced herebelow:
" The workman was appointed as Conductor
in the year 1972 and his services were terminated
vide order dated 8.12.80 so he had eight years
services to his credit at the time of his termination.
There is no evidence on the file that he was habitual
of this type of mis-conduct. An attempt on the part of
the workman to cause loss to the tune of Rs. 45.60
paise to the Government is not such a serious
misconduct which can warrant the punishment of
termination. Hence punishment awarded to the
workman is quite dis- proportionate to the proved
his mis-conduct. In such circumstances this court
has jurisdiction to exercise the powers under section
11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to interfere with
the order of the punishment.
Keeping in view of my above discussion as
the punishment of dismissal is dis-proportionate
and not comensurate to the proved mis-conduct.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055277
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC::055277
Hence the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law.
Thus the same is liale to be set-aside.
Consequently the workman will be entitled to
reinstatement with continuity of service. However he
will not be entitled for the back ages from the date of
his removal till the of award. It will be further
appropriate to stop one increment of the workman
with cumulative effect. Hence this issue is hereby
decided accordingly.
Relief
Keeping in view of my above discussion and
finding on the aforesaid issue though the domestic
enquiry conducted by the management is legal and
valid. However the punishment awarded to the
workman ws dis-proportionate to the proved mis-
conduct. Hence in exercising of powers under
section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act the
dismissal of the workman from the service is liable
to be set-aside. No is entitled to be ' reinstated with
continuity of service as conductor or on any other
post having the same pay scale but he shall not be
entitled for any back wages from the date of his
removable till the date of award. This period shall
be treated as suspension period. I further ordered to
stop one increment of workman with cumulative
effect.
The reference shall stand answered
accordingly "
7. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
second time also, learned Labour Court has committed an error by
awarding three separate punishments in lieu of reinstatement in
service. The punishments awarded to the workman as reflected in the
impugned award are as under:
(i) denial of backwages from the date of removal from the service till
the date of award; and
(ii) stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect; and
(iii) treating the period from removal of service till passing of the
award as suspension period.
8. In a similar situation, this Court (Punjab and Haryana
High Court ) in the case of 'Tilak Raj Vs. State of Punjab' 1997 (2)
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055277
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC::055277
S.C.T. 286 (CWP-1703-1981, Date of Decision:21.11.1996),
concluded as under:
"5. Shri Sehgal submits that the Labour Court
could not award two punishments at the same time
while invoking powers under Section 11A of the
Industrial Disputes Act. His client has been awarded
the penalty of stoppage of one increment with
cumulative effect and also the back wages have been
deprived to him and the period of his absence from
duty was ordered to be treated as leave of the kind
due., This argument of Mr. Sehgal is correct as the
punishments awarded by the Labour Court would be
attracted by the principles of double jeopardy. Since
the award in the present case has been passed in the
year 1980, it may not be proper for this Court to
remit the award to the Labour Court to against pass
appropriate order. This Court would like to exercise
the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and
order that management would not deprive the
workman of the increment with cumulative effect as
ordered by the Labour Court. Now, the workman
would be entitled to the reinstatement to his services
with benefit of continuity of service. However, he
would not be entitled to any back wages and his
period of absence from duty would, of course, be
treated as leave of the kind due. Resultantly the
present writ petition is partly allowed. The award
(Annexure P.9) is partly set aside and is hereby
modified as indicated above. In all other respects the
same is hereby confirmed. With above directions and
observations the present writ petition stands disposed
with no orders as to costs."
9. After going through the Tilak Raj case (supra), this
Court is ad-idem with the view taken by their Lordships. By applying
the said ratio in the present case and exercising the power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the impugned award is
partly set aside by observing that Management would not deprive the
workman of the increment with cumulative effect as ordered by
Labour Court . Also, the workman would be entitled to reinstatement
to his services with benefit of continuity of service. His period of
absence i.e. from the date of termination from the service till the
passing of the earlier award dated 22.02.1988 or reinstatement in the
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055277
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC::055277
service, would be treated as leave of the kind due. However, he would
not be entitled to any back wages for the period from the date of
termination to the first award/reinstatement. Thus, award is partly set
aside and is hereby modified as indicated hereabove.
In all other respects, the findings/observations recorded
in the award would sustain. It is needless to observe separately that
the pay scale of the petitioner would be reassessed accordingly and all
the consequential benefits would also be extended to him within four
months of submission of the certified copy of this order to the
Management.
With the aforementioned terms and observations, present
writ petition stands disposed of.
[SANJAY VASHISTH]
April 20, 2024 JUDGE
rashmi
Whether speaking/reasoned yes/no
Whether reportable? yes/no
6 of 6
