Sarabjeet Kaur vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 20264 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sarabjeet Kaur vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation And ... on 14 November, 2024

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148543




CWP-30772-2024                   1

130
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CWP-30772-2024
                                        Date of Decision:14.11.2024

SARABJEET KAUR                                            ......... Petitioner

                                     Versus

PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS
                                ....... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

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

                   ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner-wife of Darbara Singh 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-10) whereby

Labour Court has answered the reference against workman.

2. The husband of petitioner was working with respondent as

Driver and was subjected to punishment of stoppage of five increments

vide orders dated 23.08.1996 (Annexures P-1 & P-2) and four increments

vide order dated 20.04.1995 (Annexure P-3). There was allegation

against him that he has caused financial loss to Corporation to the tune of

Rs.5,157/-. The petitioner served demand notice on 16.10.2001

(Annexure P-4) i.e. after the expiry of 5 years from the date of orders of

punishment. The matter came to be referred to Labour Court which by

impugned Award dated 23.08.2022 (Annexure P-10) has answered

against the workman.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148543

3. The husband of petitioner was concededly subjected to

punishment vide orders dated 23.08.1996 (Annexures P-1 & P-2) and

20.04.1995 (Annexure P-3) and served demand notice on 16.10.2001

(Annexure P-4) i.e. after the expiry of 5 years from the date of orders of

punishment. The Labour Court has dismissed claim of the workman 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 14.11.2024 Ali

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

2 of 2