Balbir Singh vs Pepsu Road, Transport Corp. And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 19334 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Balbir Singh vs Pepsu Road, Transport Corp. And Ors on 4 November, 2024

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142943




CWP-29525-2024            1

117
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CWP-29525-2024
                                        Date of Decision:04.11.2024

BALBIR SINGH                                              ......... Petitioner

                                    Versus

PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. AND ORS ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :   Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Rakesh Roy, Advocate
            Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Advocate
            for the respondents.

                   ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of impugned

Award dated 23.08.2022 (Annexure P-8) whereby Labour Court has

answered the reference against him.

2. The petitioner was working with respondent as Conductor

and was subjected to punishment of stoppage of two increments vide

order dated 06.06.1983. There was allegation against him that he has

defrauded the Corporation to the tune of Rs.33.75. The petitioner served

demand notice on 16.10.2001 i.e. after the expiry of 18 years from the

date of order of punishment. The matter came to be referred to Labour

Court which by impugned Award dated 23.08.2022 (Annexure P-8) has

answered the reference against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was concededly subjected to punishment vide

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142943

order dated 06.06.1983 and he served demand notice on 16.10.2001 i.e.

after the expiry of 18 years from the date of order of punishment. The

Labour Court has dismissed claim of the petitioner on various grounds

including ground of limitation. The Court has opined that demand notice

was served after a considerable period of time and there is no explanation

for delay.

4. On being confronted with judgment dated 18.10.2024 passed

by this Court in CWP No.18118 of 2006 titled as 'Punjab and Sind Bank

Vs. Jai Singh and others'. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the

petitioner expressed his inability to distinguish the instant case from the

findings recorded in the said judgment.

5. Dismissed.

                                               ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                      JUDGE
04.11.2024
Ali
                   Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No

                      Whether Reportable        Yes/No




                                 2 of 2