CWP No. 5616 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (216) CWP No. 5616 of 2001 Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 Chhatar Singh .....Petitioner Versus P.O. Labour Court, Panipat and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Lakshya Saini, Advocate and Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, DAG, Haryana. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the award dated 17.7.2000 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the claim of the petitioner-workman has been declined. 2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present case are that the petitioner joined the services at Haryana Roadways, Jind as a Driver on regular basis on 17.11.1979 and he continuously worked under the respondent-department upto 21.9.1994. On 16.12.1988, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet alleging unauthorized absence from duty. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the same. Dissatisfied with the said reply, the General Manager ordered a departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Relying upon the enquiry report, the services of the GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.27 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 5616 of 2001 -2- petitioner were terminated by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 21.9.1994 (Annexure P-4). Being aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by filing a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’), pursuant to which the dispute was referred to the learned Labour Court for adjudication. However, vide impugned award 17.07.2000 (Annexure P-8), the Labour Court upheld the order of dismissal and denied the reliefs sought by him. Hence, the present writ petition by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court has committed a patent illegality in passing the impugned order dated 17.7.2000, whereby the claim of the workman has been rejected. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court committed a grave error in holding that the departmental enquiry was conducted in a fair manner, inasmuch as neither the enquiry officer properly informed the petitioner about the procedure, nor afforded to him an effective opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses. Moreover, neither the enquiry officer nor the Presenting Officer appeared before the learned Labour Court to rebut the averments made by the petitioner in the claim petition. It is also submitted that the only witness i.e. MW-1 Clerk of the department, admitted that neither had he participated in the enquiry proceedings, nor did he have any knowledge about the same. It is further submitted that even the material witness i.e. the Conductor of the bus did not appear before the enquiry officer or before the Labour Court. Learned counsel submits that even the allegation against the petitioner that he was under the influence of liquor at the relevant time, was also never proved during the enquiry or before the Labour Court. Consequently, the order of termination based on said charges cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned award GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.27 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 5616 of 2001 -3- dated 17.7.2000, be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the present petition. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court, after appreciating the entire evidence, rightly upheld the findings of the enquiry officer as well as the order of termination of the petitioner-workman. Therefore, it is prayed the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. Before proceeding further with the matter, a gainful reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.L.Singla versus Punjab National Bank and another, 2018(4) SCT 429, wherein, while upholding the validity of the inquiry, it was held as under:- “49 Having perused the enquiry proceedings along with the Enquiry Report, we are of the view that no fault of any nature can be noticed in the domestic enquiry proceedings for more than one reason. 50. First, the appellant was given full opportunity at every stage of the proceedings which he availed; Second, he never raised any objection complaining causing of any prejudice of any nature to him before the Enquiry Officer; Third, he received all the papers/documents filed and relied upon by respondent No.1-Bank in support of the charge-sheet; Fourth, he filed reply, cross examined the employer's witnesses, examined his witnesses in defense, attended the proceedings and lastly, the Enquiry Officer appreciated the evidence and submitted his reasoned report running in several pages holding the appellant guilty of both the charges. 51. In short, in our opinion, no case is made out to hold that the domestic enquiry suffers from any procedural lapse or was conducted in violation of the principle of natural justice thereby causing any prejudice to the rights of the appellant. 52. Once it is held that the domestic enquiry is legal and proper, the next question arises for consideration is as to whether the punishment imposed on the appellant is just and legal or it is GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.27 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 5616 of 2001 -4- disproportionate to the gravity of the charges.” 7. A perusal of the impugned award dated 17.7.2000 reveals that the after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned Industrial Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and that the workman was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself. The respondent-department examined MW-1 Phool Kumar, who categorically deposed that on 14.12.1988 while going from Jind to Sonepat, the workman was under the influence of liquor. Further, in his cross- examination, the said witness admitted that the petitioner remained absent from duty 4/5 times, and that he was suspended twice during his service. Moreover, MW-1 also tendered and proved all the documents of enquiry which are Ex. M1 to Ex. M-8. The learned Tribunal, accordingly, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, rightly answered the reference against the petitioner-workman. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the authorities concerned are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. 9. Needless to say that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an appellate Court to re-appreciate factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or patent illegality, warranting any interference by this Court. 10. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.27 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 5616 of 2001 -5- 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 21st, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.27 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh