CWP-6450-2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6450-2013 CHANDAN SINGH .....Petitioner Versus M/S Q.H. TALBORS LTD. AND ANR. ....Respondents 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 13.07.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 22.07. 2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 23.07.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5. The date, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof N.A. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Senior Advocate with Mr. Viranjeet Singh Mahal, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** KIRTI SINGH, J. 1) The present writ petition is directed against the award dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon, whereby the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the learned Industrial Tribunal has committed a patent error in proceeding on the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.23 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6450-2013 -2- premise that once the domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper, no further examination of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer was required except the proportionality of punishment under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is contended that even after upholding the fairness of the enquiry proceedings, the Tribunal was duty bound to independently examine whether the findings of guilt were supported by legal evidence and whether the misconduct stood proved. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. The Management and Others, (1973) 1 SCC 813. 3) Learned counsel contends that none of the witnesses examined in the domestic enquiry was cited as an eye-witness in the charge-sheet, and none of the material witnesses allegedly present at the time of the occurrence was examined. With regard to the alleged incident dated 25.06.1998, it is submitted that although the allegation was that the petitioner pushed Vinod Kumar Singh, thereby causing injuries, neither Vinod Kumar Singh was examined in the enquiry, nor was any medical evidence produced to establish that he had sustained any injury. On the contrary, the management's own witnesses, namely MW-2, MW-3 and MW-4, admitted that Vinod Kumar Singh had first slapped the petitioner and only thereafter the petitioner pushed him. Insofar as the alleged incident dated 06.06.1998 is concerned, Dhan Singh appeared as a witness on behalf of the petitioner and categorically denied the allegation that the petitioner had attempted to assault him with a chair. Learned counsel submits that besides overlooking these factual aspects, the learned Tribunal also ignored other material circumstances, including the fact that the officer who issued the charge-sheet SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.23 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6450-2013 -3- admitted that no written complaint had been made to him by any subordinate official, and that the Enquiry Officer himself subsequently appeared as the authorised representative of the management before the learned Tribunal, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. On the aforesaid premises, learned counsel submits that the findings of guilt are perverse, the impugned award suffers from patent illegality and is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly prayed that the petitioner be reinstated in service with continuity of service and consequential benefits, including back wages. Reliance is also placed upon Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 and Constable Uma Shankaran v. Union of India and Others (Law Finder Doc ID 2851536, decided on 19.01.2026) in support of the relief claimed. 4) Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2-management has opposed the present writ petition and submitted that the same is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is contended that the petitioner seeks to raise disputed questions of fact and invites this Court to re-appreciate the evidence led before the Labour Court, which is impermissible in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for serious acts of misconduct, including alleged violence, instigation of fellow workmen, disruption of work, indecent behaviour and spreading indiscipline within the establishment. Learned Senior counsel has argued that the Enquiry Officer, after considering the pleadings made and the evidence on record, including statements of all four management witnesses, recorded well-reasoned findings of fact, holding the charges as proved. It is further contended that in SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.23 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6450-2013 -4- fact, the fairness and validity of the domestic enquiry was not even challenged by the authorised representative of the workman, who, while appearing before the Labour Court, made the following statement (Annexure P-10):- “Stated that no statement is to be given on the procedure followed in the enquiry and I close my evidence on this issue and I do not press the same. I will lead evidence on other issues.” 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file. 6) The record reveals that no objection was raised by the workman to the enquiry proceedings. The Labour Court, therefore, after noting that the fairness and validity of the domestic enquiry had not been disputed before it, considered the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on merits and found the same to be based upon evidence, consequently declining to interfere with the punishment under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The contention that the enquiry report was not based on evidence was considered by the Labour Court, which observed that although every witness named in the list of witnesses may not have been examined, the relevant witnesses were duly examined. The Labour Court further noticed that the charges against the petitioner stood duly proved, that he indulged in misconduct by abusing and threatening fellow employees, physically assaulting them and pushing one employee, namely Vinod Kumar Singh, against a machine, thereby causing injuries. Moreover, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse or unsupported by evidence. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the proved misconduct, the Labour Court rightly held that the punishment of SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.23 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6450-2013 -5- dismissal from service could not be said to be disproportionate so as to warrant interference under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7) Reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not further the case of the petitioner either, given that facts of the present case are distinguishable from those of the said judgments. 8) The findings recorded by the Labour Court are based upon appreciation of the material available on record. Trite to say that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Interference is warranted only where the findings suffer from perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any such infirmity in the impugned award. 9) In view of the above discussion, no ground is made out for interference with the well-reasoned award dated 17.10.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon. 10) Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE 22.07. 2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.23 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document