Punjab-Haryana High Court
Meharban vs Po Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court ... on 1 April, 2025
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043794
CWP-21768-2014 & connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(227) CWP-21768-2014
Date of Decision : April 01, 2025
Meharban .. Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court,
Panipat and another
.. Respondents
(2) CWP-21769-2014
Jaideep .. Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court,
Panipat and another
.. Respondents
(3) CWP-22087-2014
Narain Singh .. Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court,
Panipat and another
.. Respondents
(4) CWP-21767-2014
Surender Singh Ravat .. Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court,
Panipat and another
.. Respondents
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 08:34:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043794
CWP-21768-2014 & connected cases 2
(5) CWP-21832-2014
Birbal .. Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court,
Panipat and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Ankur Goyat, Advocate, for
Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate, for the petitioner(s)
in all petitions.
Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. V.S. Mahal, Advocate and
Ms. Suverna Mutneja, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. By this common order, 05 writ petitions, the details of which
have been given in the heading, are being disposed of as all these petitions
involve the same question of law on similar facts.
2. In the present writ petitions, the challenge is to the Award dated
17.01.2014 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Labour Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) argues that the allegations
which were alleged against the petitioner(s) were identical that they had a
scuffle with the security staff and had also abused the teachers who were
present at the gate.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the said story
was a concocted one and was only brought on record in order to terminate
the services of the petitioner(s) hence, the Labour Court should have looked
into the said aspect while deciding upon the claim of the petitioner(s) and
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043794
CWP-21768-2014 & connected cases 3
while ignoring the said crucial fact, the claim of the petitioner(s) has been
rejected and therefore, the impugned Award should be set aside.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-
Management submits that all the petitioner(s) tried to force their entry in the
school and when they were stopped from doing so, they had a scuffle with
the security staff, who was appointed on contractual basis and had also
abused the teachers who were present at gate keeping in view the fact that
the petitioner(s) were working in a school.
6. Learned senior counsel for the respondent-Management further
submits that the petitioner(s) were therefore suspended on account of the
ruccus they created and consequently a departmental proceeding was
initiated against them and after proving the charges, the service of the
petitioner(s) was ultimately terminated and a finding qua the termination of
service of petitioner has already been recorded by the Labour Court that the
said departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner(s) was done in
accordance with law hence, the claim of the petitioner(s) that the
petitioners' assertion has not been accepted by the Labour Court arbitrarily,
is incorrect and liable to be rejected.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
8. It may be noticed that this Court is not sitting as an Appellate
Authority against an order passed by the Labour Court. Further, this Court
is also not there to evaluate the evidence which has come on record before
the Enquiry Officer so as to decide upon the issue that whether, the
Management should have terminated the services of the petitioner(s) or not.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043794
CWP-21768-2014 & connected cases 4
Only jurisdiction of this Court is to see that whether, the respondent-
Management duly followed the process envisaged under law for taking an
action against an employee against whom certain allegations have been
alleged or not.
9. In the present case, the petitioner(s) themselves have got their
statement recorded before the Enquiry Officer and even during the
proceedings before the Labour Court that they were given due opportunity
to defend themselves. That being so, merely petitioner(s) contend that the
order has been passed terminating the services of the petitioner(s), is no
ground for this Court to interfere unless and until it is proved on record that
the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner(s) were held in violation of
the due procedure established by law or that the order impugned passed by
the Tribunal is perverse to the facts and evidence which have come on
record.
10. In the present case, no such fact has been brought to the notice
of this Court that the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner(s) were
conducted against the procedure established by law rather a finding has
been recorded by the Labour Court that the respondent-Management
followed all the Rules required to hold enquiry which enquiry was fair and
proper and was held by giving due opportunity to the petitioner(s) to defend
themselves. The said finding has not been rebutted by the petitioner(s) to be
perverse on the basis of the evidence.
11. Further, the endeavour of the petitioner(s) is that this Court
should re-evaluate the evidence which has come on record so as to record a
different finding then the one recorded by the Enquiry Officer as well as by
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043794
CWP-21768-2014 & connected cases 5
the Labour Court. It should be noted that this Court has no jurisdiction to do
so so as to evaluate the evidence once again so as to record another finding
then the one recorded by the Enquiry Officer or by the Labour Court.
12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has argued
that keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.45 of 1957 titled as Indian Iron
and Steel Co., Ltd vs. Their Workmen, decided on 15.10.1957, the Court
has power to look into whether, the respondent-Management has taken the
action against the employees in good faith or not, or if there is a
victimization of the employees or if unfair labour practice has been adopted
and whether, the action being taken by the Management is in violation of
the principles of natural justice or not.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that in the present
case, the action against the petitioner(s) by the respondent-Management has
been taken in a vindictive manner and by violating the principles of natural
justice.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further submits that the
judgment in Indian Iron and Steel's case (supra), is fully applicable in the
present case and therefore, the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer that
the petitioners are at fault as well as by the Tribunal holding that the
departmental enquiry against the petitioner(s) was as per the law, is liable to
be set aside.
15. It may be noticed that the petitioner(s) appeared as their own
witness and no other witness was brought on record by the petitioner(s) to
corroborate their statement. Rather, the Management has brought on record
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043794
CWP-21768-2014 & connected cases 6
the two employees who were present at the spot and who were abused by
the petitioner(s).
16. Once, enough evidence was present before the Enquiry Officer
to conclude the departmental proceedings so as to hold that the petitioner(s)
were guilty of the allegation alleged against them, this Court is not within
jurisdiction to re-evaluate the said averment to come to a different
conclusion that the action taken against the petitioner(s) was not in a good
faith or there was a victimization of the petitioner(s) while conducting the
enquiry against them or there was an unfair labour practice. Once the
labour Court has already dwelled into the said aspect and has recorded a
finding that the enquiry proceedings, were held in a manner required and
established by law, the same cannot be over turned merely on the asking of
the petitioner(s) unless the said finding are proved to be perverse to the facts
on record or the evidence on record. Keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the present case, judgment in Indian Iron and Steel's
case (supra) is not applicable.
17. In the present case, the petitioner(s) have not been able to prove
that the findings recorded by the Labour Court while passing the order
impugned are perverse in any manner hence, the judgment being relied
upon by the counsel for the petitioner(s) cannot be brought into operation so
as to hold that the termination of the services of the petitioner(s) was bad in
any manner.
18. In the absence of any perversity being shown to this Court, no
ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043794
CWP-21768-2014 & connected cases 7
19. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
20. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected cases.
April 01, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
7 of 7
